Jesus cannot be properly understood in isolation from this relationship [with the Father above]. Consequently, a Christology from below that concentrates solely on the historical Jesus is inadequate.However, a Christology from above that begins with the pre-existent Logos or divine Son, without demonstrating how a firm basis for acknowledging the divinity of the Son can be found in the mission and vocation of Jesus, is also inadequate. [Wolfhart Pannenburg in Greene:311/2]

[This insightful article discusses many aspects of christology and messianology, although it does not factor in Messianic Jewish contemporary Christology, or the work of Bauckham, Hurtado and Boyarin who see not reason why a Jewish Christology could not and cannot today affirm the divinity of Yeshua. It is cross-posted from Fulcrum]

Christology, Messianism and Jewish-Christian relations

by Tim Dean

Jewish Christology

Is there such a thing as Jewish Christology? ‘Yes’, in that Judaism does engage in questioning the nature and role of Jesus, and ‘no’, because Judaism will never use the term Christ, as it would be seen as affirming Jesus as Messiah.

So how do Jews understand ‘messiah’ and view Jesus? According to Louis Jacobs, ‘messiah’ in Hebrew Scriptures refers to anyone ‘actually anointed with sacred oil for the purpose of high office, such as the king or high priest. The term is also applied to any person for whom God has a special purpose: Cyrus, king of Persia, for instance.’ Biblical antecedents led to the development of the doctrine of the Messiah, as ‘the person believed to be sent by God to usher in a new era in which all mankind will worship the true God’ [Jacobs 1995:342] With other Rabbinical scholars, he insists the doctrine of Messiah firmly denotes a this-worldly aspect of Jewish eschatology.Thus Jewish traditions are clear in their expectations of a personal Messiah:

• He will bring an end to oppression, gather in the Jewish exiles, rebuild the Temple, end war, and introduce a golden age of universal peace.
• He will be a wise leader from King David’s royal household, a leader of the redeemed people, not the Redeemer – who is God alone.
• He will bring about the resurrection of the dead.

Crucially for a Jewish evaluation of Jesus, the Messiah is not God. As Cohn-Sherbock puts it, ‘Although the Messiah was now viewed as an ideal human person who would rescue the nation, there was no expectation that he would be divine.’ [Cohn-Sherbock 2004:20]. Indeed, Jews hold that it is impossible for God to become human. The Messiah cannot forgive sins, that is God’s prerogative. David Rosen adds ‘the condition of one’s personal soul has nothing to do with the identity of the Messiah, but is a matter between the individual and God.’ [Kendal & Rosen:46]

In addition, Cohn-Sherbock notes that today, belief in the coming of a personal messiah has dwindled, with some non-Orthodox movements translating ‘belief in the Messiah into a belief in a Messianic period’. [Cohn-Sherbock 2004:20] Secular Zionism adopted elements in the Messianic tradition which were hospitable to their effort to restore the Jews to their ancient land. Later Religious Zionists, hold that while the establishment of the State of Israel cannot be identified with the Messianic hope, it is to be seen as the beginning of the redemption.(Jacobs:343)

Rejection of Jesus as Messiah, has been interpreted by some Christians as being a perverse, deliberate and malignant denial of the obvious. But in the light of this brief survey of Jewish messianic reasoning, Christians should at least acknowledge the truth of Martin Buber’s comment, ‘We, Israel, are not able to believe this.’ Why? Because messianic redemption is about a total, irreversible redemption of this world, once and for all. This is expanded upon by Schalom Ben-Chorin, ‘The concept of the redeemed soul in the midst of an unredeemed world is alien to the Jew, profoundly alien … This is the innermost reason for Israel’s rejection of Jesus, not a merely external, merely national conception of messianism. In Jewish eyes, redemption means redemption from all evil.’ [Moltmann 1994:120] So a ‘Jewish Christology’ finds no ‘Christ’ in Jesus.

The Christian response is to argue that Jesus’ messiahship was in an unexpected form as far as contemporary Jewish understanding was concerned. The particular form it took was consistent with the Hebrew scriptures, albeit based on a different interpretation of the texts.

Anti-Judaism

The Jewish inability to accept Jesus as Messiah, led to theological formulations within Christianity which developed into a profound anti-Judaism: that the Christian church has ‘superseded’ Judaism, thereby rendering it redundant in offering any hope of ‘salvation’ to Jews outside faith in Christ. As Reuther observes:

‘Anti-Judaism was the negative side of the Christian affirmation that Jesus was the Christ. … But since the Jewish religious leaders rejected this claim, the church developed a polemic against the Jews and Judaism to explain how the church could claim to be the fulfilment of a Jewish religious tradition when the Jewish religious teachers themselves denied this.’ [Reuther 1981:31]

It is important to make a distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, though a clear distinction is not always possible. Anti-Judaism includes the negative stereotyping of Jewish religious faith, expressed in the idea of supersessionism. It is based exclusively on theological grounds. However, that religious idea took on political dimensions with the rise of Christendom when the church’s power extended to civil regulation. Arguably, it is the latter phenomenon, which helped breed anti-Semitism – an ideology of hatred of the Jewish people as an ethnic group, whose very biological make-up is seen as evil. It can also carry a ‘Christian’ motif ‘thinking of Jews today as responsible for the death of Jesus, transforming the execution of Jesus into a metaphysical act of deicide for which Jews are culpable’. [UCC:75]

Without any intention of mitigating the offence of anti-Judaism, it also needs to be marked that the antipathy of each of the two faiths has been mutual. Jewish ‘anti-Christianity’ also existed at the time of Paul and the early Church, and in later Jewish writings. But the crucial difference is in the relative power relationships between the two. When Paul was writing, the Church was in an inferior power-relation to the dominant Jewish faith; but at least from the fourth century through to the present day, the position has been reversed with Christianity dominant in relation to Judaism and exerting considerable political and social influence over Jews.
Paul

No consideration of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism can take place without considering the influence of Paul, especially his letter to the Romans. For insight into Paul’s understanding of the issues, I am focusing on Tom Wright’s commentary for these reasons: this is a substantial contemporary work on Romans fully cognisant of the Holocaust and Christian anti-Judaism; in common with many scholars since FC Baur in 1836, Wright puts chapters 9-11 at the centre of Paul’s theological treatise; and because Wright does not accept the understanding of the issue offered at this essay’s conclusion – though, arguably, his framework of understanding should allow it.

Wright is cautious about anyone claiming to have fully understood the complex thought of Romans. He is passionately trying to understand Paul’s thinking within his time and context, warning that Paul is not writing to our contemporary agendas about how all religions are basically the same, nor how the one God has made two equally valid covenants, one with Jews and the other with Christians. (Wright 2002:621)

Paul’s fundamental insights here, which have earned him much criticism from his fellow Jews from that day to this, are [1] to uncouple the Mosaic law from the Abrahamic covenant and thus [2] to regard the Abrahamic covenant as fulfilled ‘apart from the law’ (3:21); [3] to see the Torah as applying to Jews only, and hence not being relevant to the eschatological period when the Gentiles were coming in to God’s people; [4] to see the Torah as intensifying the problems of Adam’s sin for those who were ‘under the Torah’, and thus as something from which its adherents needed to be freed; and [5] to claim, nevertheless, that the Torah had been given by God, had performed the paradoxical tasks assigned to it, and now strangely fulfilled in the creation of the new people of God in Christ and by the Spirit. [Wright 2002:402]

Romans offers no other conclusion than Paul’s firm belief that Jesus was the Messiah for Jews, as well the Gentiles. Paul could not have conceived of there being two parallel covenants in operation, one for Jews, and one for the rest. ‘Any suggestion that Paul would have encountered a split, a twin-track salvation-history, in which Jews should remain Jews and Gentiles might become Christians is without the slightest foundation in his thought or writings.’ True, and Wright also observes ‘There is no easy answer to the large-scale question underneath this discussion. If there were, Paul would have given it.’ [Wright 2002: 451/2] However, it should be noted that Paul has genuine concern for his own people, and will have no thought that God has abandoned Jews, or his covenant with them. ‘All Israel will be saved.’ (Rom 11:26)

In Paul’s day, there were unresolved issues within the Christian community, crucially the question of their identity as a Jewish, or non-Jewish, entity. All the early leaders and followers of this ‘Jesus movement’ were Jews who still attended synagogue. So were they a movement within Judaism or quite separate, and if the latter would there be a continuing Judaism quite separate from the growing Christian movement?
Significantly, no-where in Romans does Paul call for the evangelisation of Jews. Indeed, much of his argument seems to be exhorting Gentile Christians in Rome not to abandon Jews, and to recognise them as the covenant people of God. ‘Has God rejected his people? By no means!’ (Rom 11:1) So why doesn’t Paul call for Jewish evangelisation? Wright offers four possible explanations. First, there is a danger that Gentile Christians in Rome will assume that God has rejected Jews for good. Secondly, Rome had a long tradition of anti-Jewish sentiment. Thirdly, after Claudius’s death in 54CE thousands of Jews returned to the capital, and so it would be easy for the small young church to feel threatened and regard them as the enemy. Finally, by the late 50s there was increasing tension in Judaea and Galilee, and Rome seemed to want to provoke a Jewish rebellion. So Gentile Christians in Rome, would be eager to distance themselves from any sense of complicity with the impending revolt. [Wright 2002:623]
Given the common understanding that Christ’s second coming was not far off, it was impossible for Paul to conceive that Judaism would be flourishing two millennia later. I have no doubt that Paul thought it essential that Jews accept Jesus was their Messiah, and expected that Jews would eventually follow suit. It is also evident that Paul thought his argument in Romans 11 would be effective: that Jews would be jealous when they saw God’s blessings within the Gentile community, and as a consequence be won over. He could not possibly have conceived that Christians would persecute Jews at various times and places throughout subsequent millennia. Thus giving Jews every reason to find the notion of their proposed jealousy utterly ludicrous – and also giving them good reason to see in the unrighteous behaviour of the Church an emptiness in the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
Judaism, Christianity and liberation

Alongside the sometimes adverse nature of Christian-Jewish relations, there have been times and places down the ages characterised by good relations. Since the Holocaust, there have been fresh Jewish-Christian dialogues which have led to renewed interest in the ‘historical Jesus’, and a re-examination of ‘Christology from below’. However, within the Jewish community, opinions about Jesus range from those who deny his very existence through to those who accept some of the narrative history of Jesus’ life in the Gospels. And given the horrors of the Nazi era alone, it should not surprise anyone that among Jews, the fear exists that to acknowledge in any way ‘that Jesus has something of value to say to Jews, is to open the door to apostasy to a religion which Jews have given up their lives rather than embrace.’ [Jacobs:284]

Two dimensions of the renewed interest in Christian-Jewish dialogue will be mentioned here: Liberation Theology, and the Jewish faith of Jesus. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some Jewish scholars began to articulate liberation theologies, openly building on the work of the Christian liberation theologians. Five books encapsulated the debate. The Jewish proponents were Dan Cohn-Sherbock (1987), and Marc Ellis (1987 & 1989). Those writings were followed by a collection of essays from Jews and Christians, edited by Otto Maduro (1991), plus a review of all the volumes by Cohn-Sherbock (1992).

The rich vein of common ground discovered by these Jewish authors was based on the liberationist’s emphasis on a ‘Christology from below’. These authors were able to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as one who stood fully in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew scriptures: someone who acted out of the righteous tradition of the Law and the Prophets in advocating the rights of the poor, marginalised and oppressed; someone who saw this as inextricably bound up with the faithful worship of God over and against the empty behaviour, rituals and worship of some religious leaders. The attraction of Boff, Gutierrez and Sobrino, et al, is that ‘unlike theologians of the past, liberation theologians are not concerned to analyse Jesus’ dual nature as God and man; abstract speculation about the central issue of traditional theology have been set aside. Instead, liberation theology focuses on the historical Jesus … What is of crucial significance for Jewish-Christian dialogue is the primary emphasis on understanding Jesus as a first century Jew.’ [Cohn-Sherbock 1992: 9] Cohn-Sherbock recognises at the heart of Christian liberation theology there is a vision of Jesus as a prophet of Israel, calling the people back to the true worship of God. He therefore argues that Jews should not see Jesus’ departure from Jewish law as co-terminus with a rejection of Judaism, but rather as:

… a critique of religious corruption and moral stagnation. In his confrontation with the leaders of the nation, Jesus echoed the words of the prophets by denouncing hypocrisy and injustice.The love of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, he contended, made it impossible to establish a proper relationship with God. … As a prophetic figure Jesus should be recognisable to all Jews; like the prophets, he emphasised that loving-kindness is at the heart of the Jewish faith. Jesus’ words thus recalled such figures as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah; he stood firmly in the Jewish tradition. [Cohn-Sherbock 1992:38]

In the Christology from above and below debate, orthodox Christian belief sees them as two sides of the same coin. Wolfhart Pannenburg argues that:

Jesus cannot be properly understood in isolation from this relationship. Consequently, a Christology from below that concentrates solely on the historical Jesus is inadequate.However, a Christology from above that begins with the pre-existent Logos or divine Son, without demonstrating how a firm basis for acknowledging the divinity of the Son can be found in the mission and vocation of Jesus, is also inadequate. [Greene:311/2]

Pannenburg also observes that there is a danger in a ‘from above’ approach to Christology in that it ‘tends to overlook the historical particularity of the man Jesus, his relationship to the God whose kingdom he proclaimed and his setting within the Judaism of his time.’ [Greene:18]The problem is one of emphasis. Where Christian engagement with Judaism is concerned, I believe relationships have been impaired precisely because the Church at times over-emphasised a Christology ‘from above’ in thought, worship and practice. In this light it’s significant that Jewish engagement with liberation theology has welcomed its emphasis on Christology from below. For it focuses on the ‘this-worldly’ activity of Jesus in the prophetic tradition, with his liberating emphasis on justice and freedom from oppression being at the heart of the Law.

Albrecht Ritschl’s concept of Christology as ‘from below to above’ is a corrective to much Christian thought and practice. We must surely understand Jesus in the manner of God’s revelation to humankind in history – engaging first with Jesus’ Jewish humanity, and seeing in that historic person the expression of deity and God’s commitment to all humankind. A too exclusive focus on Christology from above has created an over-emphasis on the transcendental nature of Christianity – the supernatural at the expense of the natural – which becomes expressed in Christian sacramentalist rituals that disembody Jesus of Nazareth from ‘Christ’.Thus, it loses the dynamic ‘Jewishness’ of Jesus, his understanding of God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Jesus’ commitment to the Torah and Prophets. It further divides the Christian community from its Jewish heritage. As Colin Greene observes:

A Christ who is emptied of Jesus of Nazareth and becomes a supernatural deityother becomes not only removed from the stuff of life with its urgent concerns for just and moral behaviour, but it also becomes removed from Jesus the Jew whose ‘Christ-ness’ is dislocated from the very religiouscultural world which informs and explains the notion of ‘Messiah’. [Greene:19]

When such a ‘disembodied Christ’ comes to ascendancy in the Church, it has reinforced one of the long held Jewish objections to Christian life and practice. Rightly so. Cohn-Sherbock reiterates that Jewish objection:

… the fervent Jewish expectation of a total transformation of the world was replaced by a spiritualized and individualised hope for immortal, celestial life. The reign of God … appeared as a heavenly promise that offered salvation for the individual. Within this framework, the temporal world was understood as having only preparatory value. (…) This concept of an internalised and spiritualised Kingdom of God has worked throughout history as a deterrent for Christian action. [Cohn-Sherbock 1992:15/16]

Looking afresh at the historical Jesus, can lead to a renewed understanding of the Jewish faith of Jesus, and his relations with Jewish religious authorities. One of the issues identified as needing revision by Cohn-Sherbock, Reuther, Rosen, et al, is Christian attitudes to Pharisees.This is important for two reasons: because Jesus’ denunciations of some Pharisees are used by some Christian in their claim that God sent Jesus as Messiah because of Jewish religious failure; and because the Pharisees are the predecessors of today’s Rabbinic Judaism.

Part of the issue is the extent to which people want to argue that Jesus’ attacks on Pharisees were either: 1] specific charges brought against specific individuals, specific leaders collectively, at a particular place and point in time; or 2] a thorough denunciation of all Pharisees, their institutions and everything they ever stood for. Within Jewish-Christian relations, the question of the Pharisees can tend to polarise – with Christians who hold to the second viewpoint being met by an equally untenable view that the Gospel writers accounts of Pharisees cannot possibly be true. Support for the first interpretation comes from Matthew in what is seen to be the most virulent attack on Pharisees by Jesus – the ‘seven woes’ in chapter 23. As Luz points out, these are qualified by verse 2 where Jesus says ‘the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’ (NRSV)

Matthew consistently lays stress on their (Pharisees) practices rather than their doctrines. … their words fail to match their deeds. That the disciples must ‘do everything they tell you’ (23:2) is, of course, hyperbole that, rhetorically, reaffirms the main thrust of Matthew’s Gospel, the emphasis of practice over theory. [Luz 1995:122]

Some Jewish scholars are quite prepared to recognise that the Pharisees Jesus addressed were either as corrupt or hypocritical as Jesus described, or were at least capable of being so. David Rosen sees a very important distinction between those Pharisees Jesus is recorded as addressing and Pharisees as they are to be truly understood (Kendall & Rosen 2006:3), and the Jewish scholars engaged in dialogue on Liberation Theology have no difficulty in acknowledging corruption in the Jewish leadership which Jesus confronted.

It is also true to assert as Jacobs does that ‘Christianity itself owes much to the Pharisaic background of Jesus – the Christian doctrine of the Hereafter and the resurrection of the dead, for instance.’[Jacobs:376] Reuther argues that Pharisees such as Hillel ‘were making some of the same interpretations of the law as Jesus did’. [Reuther 1981:37]

More than that the Church must not lose sight of Jesus’ total commitment to the Jewish faith and its heritage. So when Jesus attacked money-changers in the Temple, it was not an attack on the Templeitself, or the Hebrew faith, rather an attack on corruption and an affirmation of the sanctity and significance of the Temple. Christianity must also affirm that it is Jewish. Not in the sense that any branch of Judaism wants to claim Christianity as its own. Rather, that Christianity is formed of Jewish faith and culture, gets its paramount theme, ‘messiah’ from it (without which, by definition, Christianity cannot be understood).
Patronising generosity

As David Goldberg has observed, ‘Monotheism, by definition is triumphalist. Judaism says weare the Chosen People. Christianity asserts that there is no salvation out side the Church. Islam says there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is the last and greatest of all the prophets.’ [1]Within those triumphalist affirmations, which appear to assert each faith’s exclusive hold of the overall meta-narrative of human history, each faith continues to develop frameworks for understanding the other – some negative and others affirmative.
Judaism has a long tradition of acknowledging that Gentiles can have a place in the life of God and the world to come. Essentially there are two ways of being righteous, for Jews it is summed up in the Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic laws, formulated as observing 613 commandments.For the Gentiles there is the Noahide Covenant which ‘reflects God’s commitment to care for all humanity and not destroy it (Gen. 9:9-11). In return He expects all humanity to lead a moral life (Gen. 9:4-6)’, which is set out in the seven Noahide laws consisting of ‘the prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery and incest (counted as one), robbery, the need to establish a proper system of justice, and the prohibition of eating flesh torn from a living animal.’ [Jacobs: 366] In addition, despite Jews regarding Christians as having ‘usurped’ the concept of ‘messiah’ and wrongly ascribed it to Christ, many are able to echo Maimonides infamous remark ‘All these activities of Jesus the Christian … are all for the purpose of paving the way for the true King Messiah, and preparing the entire world to worship God together.’ [Melamed] ‘Infamous’, because the remark only appears in uncensored manuscripts. [Goldberg 1989:279]
So how does Christian theology deal with Judaism? In very broad terms, Christians have responded in four different ways:

1. To assert, there is no salvation apart from personal faith in Christ, and every person must declare a personal faith allegiance in Jesus the Messiah, with no exception for Jews.
2. God has two covenants with humankind in parallel operation, one for Jews and another for the Gentiles. Such views can range from: the idea that Jesus wasis the only Messiah, but Jews who don’t recognise the fact may still be redeemed by observance of the Abrahamic covenant, through to the view that there is one Messiah for the Jews, and another for Gentiles – Jesus.
3. There is only one covenant, but two expressions – Jewish and Christian, and ultimately Jesus will be seen by all to be the one Messiah of God.
4. Christianity has got its Christology wrong. Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, and his later followers – especially Paul – wrongly bequeathed that title upon him posthumously.

In rejecting 1, 2 and 4, my Christian framework is this: the Hebrew Scriptures distinguish between faithful and unfaithful people within the covenant community. The Christian conviction is that Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection, is the single agency for the salvation of all faithful people, and will present them as holy before God, and that this applies to all the departed of Israel before the advent of Jesus. Paul’s affirmation ‘All Israel will be saved’ applies to all faithful Jews in every age – those who in their lifetime believe that Jesus was their Messiah, as well as those who for the reasons outlined above, do not. This is not about two covenants in parallel operation, but rather one covenant with two expressions. To use Paul’s analogy, the Christian community is the branch grafted onto the tree of the Abrahamic covenant.

It is no use Judaism and Christianity pretending to be what they are not for the sake of ‘good’ relations. It is more helpful when they state their disagreements honestly, yet show how their own faith desires to accommodate a positive understanding of the other. The two contrary Jewish and Christian frameworks, can be seen as ‘generous’ by those disposed to do so, because at least they acknowledge the genuine faith in the one true God. Such ‘generosity’ I believe allows for creative, productive and positive relations without fudging or denying the integrity of the other – as long as we recognise the inherent ‘patronising’ nature of such frameworks, as one side seeks to affirm the other in a framework the other can’t accept.
Judaism and Christianity have two very important things in common. Both communities throughout their history, have not only brought much good and blessing to humankind, but also have had monumental failures, corruption and disobedience – which both should humbly acknowledge. Both await the coming of the Messiah – Jews for the first time, Christians for a second. Arguably, both have a shared vision of the nature and manner of human redemption when the Messiah comes.
That said and done, while it is vitally necessary for faith communities to always have frameworks for understanding, the real question is: Who is doing the judging? We must avoid the danger of appropriating the sole prerogative of God: it is for Him to judge.

Prayer: Thank you Lord for the challenges posed in this article, to truly develop a Messianic Jewish Christology that relates the nature, being and activity of Yeshua in both Jewish and Christian contexts. Please give us your wisdom and understanding that we may more closely follow your truth. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

Footnotes:

¹From a conversation on March 7^th 2006 with David J. Goldberg OBE who is Rabbi Emeritus of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue in St. John’s Wood, London.

Bibliography:

Bosch, D. J. (1991) Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission New York: Orbis Books

Cantor, N. (1995) The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews London: Fontana Press.

Cohn-Sherbock, D. (1987) On Earth as it is in Heaven: Jews, Christians and Liberation TheologyMaryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Cohn-Sherbock, D. (1992a) Exodus: An Agenda for Jewish-Christian Dialogue London: Bellew Publishing.

Cohn-Sherbock, D. (1992b) Israel: The History of an Idea London: SPCK.

Cohn-Sherbock, D. and L. (2004) An Encyclopedia of Judaism and Christianity London: Darton, Longman & Todd.

Cousar, C. B. (1996) The Letters of Paul Nashville: Abingdon

Deibert, R. I. (2002) ‘The Justification of Covenantal Nomism: Reflections on Justification and Variegated Nomism, its Editorial Conclusions, and Pauline Theology’ (Cambridge NT PhD Seminar, 24/06/02) Available at:http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/JVN Reflections for PDF.pdf

Ellis, M. H. (1987) Towards a Jewish Theology of Liberation Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Ellis, M. H. (1989) Towards a Jewish Theology of Liberation: The Uprising and the Future Maryknoll,New York: Orbis Books.

Epstein, I. (Ed.), Freedman, H. & Schacter, J. (Trs.) Sanhedrin (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter XI, Folios 97-99), Available at: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin

France, R. T. (1980) ‘Messiah: In the New Testament’ in Douglas, J. D. et al, Eds. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2 Leicester: IVP; Wheaton: Tyndale House; Hodder & Stoughton: Sydney &Auckland.

Gager, J. G. (2000) ‘Paul’s contradictions – Can they be resolved?’ Bible Review 14 p32-39, Biblical Archaeology Society. Available at: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=747

Goldberg, D. J., & Rayner, J. D. (1989) The Jewish People: Their History and their Religion London: Penguin Books.

Goldsmith, M. F. (1988) ‘Judaism and Christianity’ in Sinclair, B. F. and Wright, D. F. eds., New Dictionary of Theology Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Greene, C. J. D. (2003) Christology in Cultural Perspective: Marking out the horizons Carlisle: Paternoster Press.

Jacobs, L. (1995) The Jewish Religion: A Companion Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. G. (1995) ‘The Cross, the Church and the Jewish People’ in Goldingay, J. ed. Atonement Today London: SPCK.

Kendall, R. T. & Rosen, D. (2006) The Christian and the Pharisee: Two outspoken religious leaders debate the road to heaven London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Kessler, E. (2002) ‘God Doesn’t Change His Choice’ Church Times 08/03/02, Available at:http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=940

de Lange, N. (1986) Judaism Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luz, U. (1995) The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tim Dean is Director of the World Media Trust, and an Anglican priest working part-time in Godalming Parish. In a voluntary capacity Tim is Executive Secretary of First Step Forum (an international network of Members of Parliaments; former Prime Ministers, Foreign Affairs Ministers, and Ambassadors; and others engaged in private, independent diplomacy for religious freedom and human rights). He is also a senior associate of the Washington based Institute for Global Engagement – a ‘think-tank with legs’, created to develop sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide. He was formerly a Commissioning Editor for the BBC World Service’s English network, and before that editor of Third Way.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/christology-messianism-and-jewish-christian-relations/

The Barmen Declaration or The Theological Declaration of Barmen 1934 (Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung) was a document adopted by Christians in Nazi Germany who opposed the Deutsche Christen (German Christian) movement. In the view of the delegates to the Synod that met in the city of Barmen in May, 1934, the German Christians had corrupted church government by making it subservient to the state and had introduced Nazi ideology into the German Protestant churches that contradicted the Christian gospel.

The Barmen Declaration rejects (i) the subordination of the Church to the state (8.22–3) and (ii) the subordination of the Word and Spirit to the Church. “8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.” On the contrary, The Declaration proclaims that the Church “is solely Christ’s property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.” (8.17) Rejecting domestication of the Word in the Church, The Declaration points to the inalienable lordship of Jesus Christ by the Spirit and to the external character of church unity which “can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed” (8.01): it submits itself explicitly and radically to Holy Scripture as God’s gracious Word.

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.” Therefore, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The Declaration was mostly written by the Reformed theologian Karl Barth but underwent modification, especially with the introduction of its fifth article (on the two kingdoms), as a result of input from several Lutheran theologians.

The document became the chief confessional document of the so-called Confessing Church. The ecumenical nature of the Declaration can be seen by its inclusion in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Book of Order of the world wide Moravian Unity, the Unitas Fratrum.

One of the main purposes of the Declaration was to establish a three-church confessional consensus opposing pro-nazi “German Christianity”. These three churches were Lutheran, Reformed, and United.

Prayer: Thank you Lord for the courage of Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others who saw the need to proclaim your sovereignty over against all human powers. For some this resistance cost their lives, yet their opposition to tyranny calls each of us in every generation to distinguish between divine and human powers. May we as Jewish believers in Yeshua make right decisions in our understanding and our involvement with all human institutions, power and states. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

https://gratiaveritaslumen.wordpress.com/tag/barmen-declaration/

http://skepticism.org/timeline/may-history/5926-german-confessing-church-releases-barmen-declaration.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmen_Declaration

Michael Wyschogrod (born September 28, 1928) is a Jewish German-American philosopher of religion, Jewish theologian, and activist for Jewish-Christian interfaith dialog. During his academic career he taught in philosophy and religion departments of several universities in the United States, Europe, and Israel.

Wyschogrod has been concerned primarily, in his activism and in his scholarly work, with the relationship, especially the theological dialogue, between Judaism and Christianity. His book Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations makes an appeal for a new non-supersessionist Christian view of Judaism. If Judaism and Christianity are to have a stable and harmonious co-existence in the future, then Christianity must dispense with or, at the very least, not openly insist on a status for Judaism in which Judaism is considered an incomplete or antiquated religion.

At the same time, Wyschogrod urges from the Jewish side that Jews not pursue a fallacious dismissal of the divinity of Christ that operates on a priori grounds. In other words, while Jews – Wyschogrod included – can and perhaps even should reject the divinity of Christ, they should not do so by attempting to argue that God’s Incarnation in man is somehow inconsistent with the teaching of the Hebrew Bible. On the contrary, there is much merit to the Christological position that posits “the indwelling of God in Israel by concentrating that indwelling in one Jew rather than leaving it diffused in the people of Jesus as a whole.”

Even Wyschogrod’s writing that focuses solely on Jewish theology could be said to show evidence of the importance in his thought of dialogue between Jewish and Christian theology. His emphasis on the radical and sublime shock and force of God’s choice to enter human history in and through the people of Israel, a unilateral and non-abrogable event, shows an affinity with the thought of the Neo-Orthodox Protestant theologian Karl Barth, whose work Wyschogrod considered relevant to Jewish theologians.

Mark Kinzer writes: I concur with the Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod in contending that a theologically consistent Christian renunciation of supersessionism demands that Christians take Jewish identity seriously both beyond and within the boundaries of the ecclesia. [Mark Kinzer, Searching the Mystery, 2015]

He quotes Wyschogrod:

[T]he Church claims to be the new people of God, Abraham’s sons according to faith. . . . From the point of view of the Church, it appears, the election of Israel is thus superseded in God’s plan by a new election. Does this mean that the old Israel, the sons of Abraham according to the flesh, ought to disappear from the stage of history? This is not clear. It would seem that the answer is “Yes” because the Church, with the exception perhaps of the very first decades, did not insist that Jews who embraced Christianity retain their identity as Abraham’s offspring. Instead, Jews who entered the Church intermarried and their descendants quickly lost knowledge of their origins.

Had the Church believed that it was God’s will that the seed of Abraham not disappear from the world, she would have insisted on Jews retaining their separateness, even in the Church. . . . Since the Church did not assign to the Jew who became a Christian such special status, it can be inferred that . . . the Church seriously holds that its election superseded that of the old Israel.21

Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise, 183–84. See also 202–10.

Prayer: Thank you Lord for the works of Michael Wyschogrod, and the works of other Jewish scholars such as Peter Ochs. David Novak and Daniel Boyarin, who remind the Church of her Jewish roots and her ongoing indissoluble bond with the Jewish people that places Messianic Jews in both Church and Israel. May their teachings challenge both Church and Israel to recognize your purposes. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wyschogrod

http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25:abrahams-promise-judaism-and-jewish-christian-relations&catid=16:book-reviews&Itemid=444

On May 29th 408, a constitution issued by Anthemius, praetorian prefect of the east, makes a curious accusation against eastern Jews; the law is subsequently incorporated into the Theodosian code, promulgated by emperor Theodosius II in 438:

Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, praetorian prefect. The governors of the provinces shall prohibit the Jews from setting fire to Haman in memory of his past punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent a form made to resemble the holy Cross in contempt of the Christian faith, lest they introduce the sign of our faith into their places, and they shall restrain their rites from ridiculing the Christian law, for they are bound to lose what had been permitted them till now unless they abstain from those matters which are forbidden. Given the fourth day before the calends of June at Constantinople, in the consulate of Bassus and Philippus1.

This law suggests that in their celebrations of the festival of Purim, Jews deliberately mock Christianity by burning a crucified effigy of Haman. Not only does the law prohibit this custom, but the emperors Honorius and Theodosius, under whose authority the law is issued, warn Jews to refrain from associating Christian symbols with Jewish rites and in general from ridiculing Christianity. The implicit threat is that if they fail to heed this injunction, they risk losing their privileges in Christian Roman society.

As often with isolated legal texts, it is difficult, if not impossible to comprehend the historical reality underlying the text. Did 4th century Jews in fact burn a crucified Haman in effigy as part of Purim celebrations? If so, how widespread was this practice? The emperors affirm that the practice deliberately mocked Christianity, and that this is part of a wider tendency to deride the Christian faith. This is one of a number of laws in theTheodosian Code, which seem to reflect a preoccupation with the borders between Jewish and Christian communities, Jewish and Christian symbols and rituals.

Reflection and Prayer: This fascinating insight into the relations between Jews and Christians shows the existence of mutual misunderstanding that would develop further into outright repression of one group by the other. Here, Jews and Christians live side by side, and the Roman authorities try to keep the peace.

Lord, help us, wherever possible, to live at peace with all, Help us to protect the rights of others, particularly their freedom of faith and expression, especially where their views differ to ours. In the name of Yeshua, the Prince of Peace we pray. Amen.

http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/249-roman-laws

https://books.google.hu/books?id=Roh0XkMXwVkC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=29+May+408+law&source=bl&ots=tvJ5N4rM9G&sig=hvSKbYFvSBU_Bw324rPYi-cAVqY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nYdnVdS7AsWpsgHMqoHABA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/249-roman-laws

https://www.academia.edu/5157791/The_rites_of_Purim_as_seen_by_the_Christian_Legislator_Codex_Theodosianvs_16.8.18

1«impp. honorius et Theodosius aa. anthemo praefecto praetorio. iudaeos quodam festiuitatis suae sollemni aman ad poenae quondam recordationem incendere et sanctae crucis adsimulatam speciem in contemptum christianae fidei sacrilega mente exurere prouinciarum rectores prohibeant, ne locis suis fidei nostrae signum inmisceant, sed ritus suos citra contemptum christianae legis retineant, amissuri sine dubio permissa hactenus, nisi ab inlicitis temperauerint. dat. iiii kal. iun. Constantinopoli Basso et Philippo conss.» (TheodosiusII, Theodosiani [hereafter CTh), 16.8.18, p.891; The Corpus of Roman Law, trans. by C. Pharr. I prefer the reading «locis» to «iocis» (extant in some manuscripts), and have modified the citations of the Latin text and english translation accordingly. for the text, commentary and bibliography on this law, see <http://www.cn-telma.fr/relmin/extrait979/&gt;. This publication is part of the research project ReLMIn «The Legal status of Religious Minorities in the euro-Mediterranean World (5th-15th centuries)»; The research leading to this publication has received funding from the european Research Council under the european union’s seventh framework Progamme (fP7/2007-2013)/eRC grant agreement no 249416. see <www.relmin.eu>.

José Martínez Gázquez y John Victor Tolan (eds.), Ritus Infidelium. Miradas interconfesionales sobre las prácticas religiosas en la Edad Media, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez (138), Madrid, 2013, pp. 165-173.

The Rites of Purim as seen by The Christian Legislator: Codex Theodosianvs 16.8.18

Prohibition to Mock Christianity on Purim

Emperors Theodosius II and Honorius, May 29, 408

The governors of the provinces shall prohibit the Jews from setting fire to Haman in memory [effigy] of his past punishment, in a certain ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent a form made to resemble the holy cross in contempt of the Christian faith, lest they mingle the sign of our faith with their jests, and they shall restrain their rites from ridiculing the Christian Law, for they are bound to lose what had been permitted them till now unless they abstain from those matters which are forbidden.

“He was an acknowledged and unrivalled master in the interpretation of prophecy, and intensely practical withal.”

“Goodhart was no ordinary man — he dominated the Committee and ruled the missionaries with a rod of iron. Yet they all appeared to like it! For he not only thus magnified his office, but also made it honourable.” [Gidney]

I have been unable to find a photo of Rev. Charles J. Goodhart (does anyone have one?) but his character speaks for itself from the pages of Gidney’s History of CMJ:

(p273) On May 28th, 1892, the Rev. C. J. Goodhart, Honorary Secretary, passed away at the advanced age of 88, after a connexion, unofficial and official, with the Society of fifty-three years. He spoke at the 30th Anniversary in 1839 and again in 1841, and had as his fellow speakers, Edward Bickersteth, Dr. Marsh, T. S. Grimshawe, Sir George Rose, Longley Bishop of Ripon, Lord Ashley, Haldane Stewart, and Fremantle. Goodhart spoke again in 1 848 and 1 872. He preached the Annual Sermon in 1853 and again in 1869, and took part in the Anniversary of 1887 ; nearly fifty years after his first appearance!

We have already spoken of Mr. Goodhart, both at the time of his appointment and of his resignation of the post of secretary, which he held from 1853 to 1858: and would now add that he brought to the work an ardent zeal for the cause, a rare and extensive knowledge of the subject, a wonderful business aptitude, and a burning eloquence in pulpit and on platform. He was an acknowledged and unrivalled master in the interpretation of prophecy, and intensely practical withal. For twenty-three years, as honorary secretary, he gave the Society the benefit of his wise counsel and ripe experience, though he was unable to take a very active interest in its affairs, owing to increasing years. Ordained in the year 1827, his was indeed a long and useful life ; and he passed away ” as a shock of corn cometh in in his season.”

Prayer: Thank you Lord, for this distinguished and significant servant of yours, and of the London Society, whose gifts and ministry are recorded by Gidney. Help us to live lives that are similarly worthy of praise, and to your glory. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

References in Gidney

1. J. Goodhart, then minister of St Mary’s Episcopal Chapel, Reading, 1840

The Rev. C. J. Goodhart made his “maiden” speech for the Society in Exeter Hall, 1839

145 the Rev. Charles J. Goodhart, incumbent of Park Chapel, Chelsea, was appointed Secretary. He was certainly one of the most capable of the men who have held this office. Formerly a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, and 22nd Wrangler, he was now a well-known Evangelical clergyman. He had just preached the Anniversary Sermon, but his labours had long been devoted to the Society, and his appointment was most acceptable to the friends of Israel and of the Society throughout the country. 1853

154/1853 At the conclusion of the war strenuous efforts were made to have the prohibition removed, and in 1857 a deputation consisting of the Earl of Shaftesbury, Dr. McCaul, the Revs. J. C. Reichardt, and C. J. Goodhart waited upon the Russian Ambassador in London, who referred the matter to H. I. M. the Emperor. After a delay of half a year an unfavourable reply was received, and Russian Poland remained closed to the Society for 20 years.

(1858) The Secretary, the Rev. C. J. Goodhart, read an address to the Committee on the occasion of the Jubilee from the Westphalian Jews’ Society.

(1858) The Jubilee was also widely celebrated in the Provinces. At Norwich, on the 8th of March, a sermon was preached in St. Stephen’s Church, by Goodhart, and the next morning a sermon was preached by the Bishop of Norwich in St. Peter Mancroft. On Wednesday a juvenile meeting was held in St Andrew’s Hall, 2,000 persons, principally children, being present; and on Thursday, Sir Samuel Rignold presided at a tea in the same hall, followed by a large meeting. Norwich has ever been famous for its enthusiasm for the Society. Jubilee meetings were held at Darlington, addressed by the Rev. T. Minton; at Derby, addressed by the Rev. J. Cohen and the Jubilee Secretary ; at York, addressed by Hugh McNeile, who also preached in one of the city churches. At Cambridge a very full attendance of University men was secured, the Society being represented by W. Cadman, T. R. Birks and Goodhart.

(1858) The Revs. A. M. Myers, and Dr. Fry of Hobart Town, made excellent speeches, and with prayer by Goodhart, the Jubilee commemorations came to an end.

(179) The Rev. C. J. Goodhart, who had been Secretary from 1853, resigned his position toward the close of 1868, on his acceptance of the living of Wetherden in Suffolk, and was appointed Honorary Secretary. During his tenure of office he had also held the incumbency of Park Chapel, Chelsea; the double duties not then being thought beyond the power of one man to discharge, as they most certainly are at the present day. But Goodhart was no ordinary man — he dominated the Committee and ruled the missionaries with a rod of iron. Yet they all appeared to like it! For he not only thus magnified his office, but also made it honourable. And, which was more to the purpose, he magnified the cause, and increased its popularity, especially amongst that class who were more interested in the Jewish question than in the actual work of the Society, and who held the same prophetical views as himself. These he was never tired of advocating, nor his hearers of hearing. What Sydney Smith said of Bishop Blomfield of London, might ceteris mutandis be said of Goodhart. Sydney Smith said Blomfield was ” the Church of England here upon earth,” and ” when the Church of England is mentioned, it only means Charles James London.”* So in the same emphatic way Goodhart was the Society, and the Society for the time being was Goodhart. His acquaintance with its actual work was not so circumstantial or extensive as that possessed by his predecessor, William Ayerst, which was gained in the mission field itself; but Goodhart had a more marked personality which impressed every one with whom he came into contact. Both these men were very highly esteemed and honoured for their work’s sake. Goodhart was succeeded from January 1st, 1869, by the Rev. C. H. Banning.

Sermons

The lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister examined by scripture in a letter to a friend by C. J Goodhart( )
10 editions published between 1848 and 1849 in English and held by 449 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The lawfulness of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister : examined by scripture in a letter to a friend by C. J Goodhart( )
2 editions published in 1849 in English and held by 26 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Coming events and the coming king by C. J Goodhart( Book )
in English and held by 5 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Abraham and his seed : a sermon preached at the Episcopal Jews’ Chapel, Palestine Place, Bethnal Green, on Thursday, May 5, 1853, before the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews by C. J Goodhart( Book )
2 editions published in 1853 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The Book of Family Prayer … By clergymen of the United Church of England and Ireland. With an introductory essay on family worship by the Rev. Charles Bridges … Edited by the Rev. C.J. Goodhart … and the Rev. C. Holloway by C. J Goodhart( Book )
3 editions published in 1844 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Trinitarian Bible Society : speech by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1853 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

“Safe for Ever.” Reminiscences of the life of … A. S. Godfrey. By his Mother [Mrs. N. S. G. With an introduction by C. J. Goodhart] by N. S Godfrey( Book )
1 edition published in 1869 in Undetermined and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Glimpses of grace and glory: a sermon by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1859 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

What a man soweth he must reap. A sermon [on Gal. vi. 7] preached at the special services at Exeter Hall …, September 19, 1858 by C. J Goodhart( Book )
2 editions published in 1858 in Undetermined and English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

“Only in the Lord,” or, Christian marriage by Julia Puddicombe( Book )
1 edition published in 1846 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The errors of ritualism have their source in the unregenerate human heart by C. J Goodhart( Book )
2 editions published between 1923 and 1924 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Our Missions: being a history of the principal missionary transactions of the London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews from its foundation in 1809, to the present year. With an introduction by … C. J. Goodhart, etc by Thomas D HALSTED( Book )
1 edition published in 1866 in Undetermined and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Parting Words to a Beloved Flock: being the substance of two sermons [on 1 John ii. 28 & Heb. xiii. 8] preached at Park Chapel, Chelsea, on Dec. 6, 1868 by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1869 in Undetermined and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The Book of family prayer; comprising a course of original prayers for every morning and evening in the year, arranged in the order of the ecclesiastical year, according to the Book of Common Prayer. To which are added, prayers adapted to the festivals of the Church, and to the varying circumstances of the family; with others for special occasions ( Book )
2 editions published between 1844 and 1845 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

On moissonnera ce qu’on aura semé, sermon prêché à Exeter-Hall, le 19 septembre 1858 … Traduit de l’anglais par R. Cassignard by C. J Goodhart( )
in Undetermined and French and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

What a man soweth he must reap : a sermon preached at the special services at Exeter Hall, on Sunday evening, September 19, 1858 by C. J Goodhart( Book )

1 edition published in 1858 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Glimpses of Grace and Glory. Sermons by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1859 in Undetermined and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Readiness for the Lord’s Coming; as exemplified in the life and death of A.M. Lodge … A funeral sermon [on Matt. xxiv. 44] … Second edition by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1858 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

“Only in the Lord”: or, Christian Marriage. With an introduction by C.J. Goodhart by Julia Puddicombe( Book )
1 edition published in 1846 in English and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Christian Association for the dissemination of the Scriptures, only restricted by essential truth. A sermon [on John v. 20-21] preached … May 20, 1844 … on behalf of the Trinitarian Bible Society by C. J Goodhart( Book )
1 edition published in 1844 in Undetermined and held by 2 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

http://archive.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT042_Goodhart.pdf

THE ERRORS OF RITUALISM HAVE THEIR SOURCE IN THE UNREGENERATE HUMAN HEART Church Association Tract 42

PÖSING or BÖSING (Hungarian, Bazin):

Small town in the county of Presburg, where on May 27, 1529 (Friday, Siwan 9), thirty Jews were burned to death on the accusation of having murdered a Christian child for ritual purposes. The charge was invented by the lord of the place, Franz, Count of St. Georgen and Pösing, who wished to rid himself of the debts which he owed to the Jews of Marchegg and Pösing. Isaac Mandel, prefect of the Hungarian Jews, demanded protection and justice at the hand of King Ferdinand I. for the Jews of both these places; but the feudal lord did not heed the king’s warning. The memor-book of the Cracow ḥebra ḳaddisha records the names of those who suffered death at this time. In order to witness the martyrdom the inhabitants of Neisse, Olmütz, and Vienna, as well as those of the neighboring cities, poured into Pösing. Among those who suffered was Moses b. Jacob Kohen, who with his children voluntarily cast himself into the flames. The Jews of Marchegg were saved, as in the meantime the missing child was found alive. [Jewish Encycolpedia]

For centuries after this event Jews were not permitted to live in Pösing, nor even to spend a night there. When a Pösing senator gave shelter to the Jew Lazar Hirsch, the excited populace besought King Leopold I. (1657-1705) to confirm their old right of prohibiting Jews from sojourning there. The king decided in favor of the town, and Lazar Hirsch was compelled to remove to the estate of the counts of Palffy.

Reflection and Prayer: Tomorrow I will be in Budapest, where we will be addressing the issues affecting Jewish believers in Yeshua in Hungary today. The historical record is not good, and it is little wonder that anyone aware of such events will recoil in horror and shame. Father, forgive, and please renew in our days the love of Yeshua for his people Israel within the church. In your name we pray. Amen.

Bibliography:

• Wolf, in Leopold Rosenberg, Jahrbuch für die Israelitischen Cultusgemeinden in Ungarn, i. 263-273, Arad, 1860;
• Büchler, A Zsidók Története Budapesten, p. 96, Budapest, 1901;
• Kaufmann, in Monatsschrift, 1894, pp. 426-429;
• Sokolow, in Ha-Asif, vi. 133;
• Ain Erschrockenlich Geschicht, etc., ed. Büchler, in Magyar Zsidó Szemle, xi. 90.

CÍMSZÓ: Bazini vérvád

SZÓCIKK: Bazini vérvád. 1529 máj. 27., a magyar zsidóság történetének legtragikusabb napján, Bazin pozsony megyei város piacán harminc máglya tüze elhamvasztott ugyanannyi zsidót, korra és nemre való tekintet nélkül, a mesterségesen kieszelt és szított vérvádrágalom következtében. Wolf Ferenc, pozsony-szentgyörgyi és bazini gróf, aki a zsidóknál eladósodott, koholta ezt a vérvádat, hogy szabaduljon a bazini és marcheggi zsidók követeléseitől. Mendel Izsák, a magyarországi zsidóságnak a király által kinevezett prefektusa a közelgő veszedelem hírére I. Ferdinánd király védelmét és az igazságszolgáltatás alkalmazását kérte s jóllehet ígéretet kapott erre nézve, a gróf nem hallgatott a királyra. A koholt vád annyira valótlannak bizonyult, hogy a gyermek, akiről a gróf azt állította a közvélemény előtt, hogy a zsidók rituális célból meggyilkolták, rövidesen megérkezett szülővárosába s kitűnt, hogy maga a gróf csempészte őt Bécsbe arra az időre, amíg tervét végrehajtja. Éppen ezért a marcheggi zsidók az utolsó pillanatban megmenekültek s nem osztották bazini testvéreik sorsát. A krakkói hitközség «Memor Könyve» felsorolja a mártírok neveit s ezek közt nők és gyermekek is szerepelnek, azonkívül a legtekintélyesebb bazini zsidók, köztük Mózes ben Jákob Kóhen, aki gyermekeivel együtt ment a lángokba. A szörnyű barbárságot, amelyhez hasonló sem azelőtt, sem azután nem sújtott magyar zsidó hitközséget, még azzal tetézték, hogy a maradék zsidóságot kiűzték a városból, ahol már annak megalapítása óta lakott. A kiűzetés után századokon át nem engedték be a zsidókat Bazinba s midőn egy alkalommal, a XVII. század közepén, Pálfy gróf Hirsch Lázár nevű zsidó kereskedőnek menedékhelyet adott saját birtokán, a fanatizált és nemzedékeken át izgatott nép kívánságára kieszközölték I. Lipót királytól a zsidók további kitiltását. Csupán egy századdal később települtek le ismét Bazinba. (l. Vérvád, Nagyszombati vérvád és Tiszaeszlári vérvád.)

Ez a címszó a Magyar Zsidó Lexikonban (1929, szerk. Újvári Péter) található. A felismertetett és korrektúrázott szövegben előfordulnak még hibák, úgyhogy a szócikk pontos szövegének és külalakjának megtekintéséhez nyissa meg a digitalizált oldalképet!Ez a(z) 457. címszó a lexikon => 97. oldalán van. Az itt olvasható változat forrása: Nagy Péter Tibor: Az 1929-es magyar zsidó lexikon adatbázisa. Szociológiai adatbázisok No. 1. WJLF, Budapest, 2013

Reference: Pezinok blood libel [Google translation]

Main article: Blood libel Pezinok. 1529 May 27, the most tragic day in the history of Hungarian Jewry, Bratislava County town of Pezinok market regardless Thirty bonfire fire as many Jews were cremated, age and gender in the artificially contrived and instigated as a result of vérvádrágalom. Francis Wolf, Bratislava and St. George and Pezinok count, indebted to the Jews, devised this blood libel that Jews rid of Pezinok and Marchegg követeléseitől. Isaac Mendel, the Hungarian Jewry prefect appointed by the king on the news of the impending peril protection and the application of justice, he asked King Ferdinand and though this was promised for the count did not listen to the king. The trumped-up accusation proved to be so unreal that the child, whom the count has claimed before the public that the Jews of ritual purpose was murdered shortly came to his hometown and showed that the count himself smuggled him to Vienna for the time until the plan is carried out. That is why the Marchegg Jews were saved at the last minute and did not share the fate of their brethren Pezinok. The Jewish community in Krakow “Memor Book” lists the names of the martyrs and among them women and children are also included, in addition to the prestigious Pezinok Jews, among them was Moses Jacob Kohen, who went with her children to the flames. The terrible barbarity to which similar either before or after the non-affected Hungarian Jewish Communities, has come on top with the remaining Jews were driven out of the city, which has been inhabited since its foundation. After the expulsion of the Jews were not allowed to enter Bazina centuries, and when on one occasion, in the XVII. mid-century, Count Palffy Hirsch Jewish merchant named Lazarus gave shelter in its own grounds, the fanatic and excited people for generations at the request of King Leopold I bargained for further banning of Jews. Only a century later settled in Bazina again. (L. Verve, Trnava and Tiszaeszlár Blood Libel Blood Libel.)

This is the keyword of the Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia (1929, ed. Peter Újvári) away. The recognized text proofread and made more errors occur, so the exact text of the article to see the appearance and open the digitized page images! This (county) 457 keyword in the lexicon => 97 is back. The source version can be found here: Peter the Great, Tibor: The 1929 Hungarian Jewish encyclopedia database. Sociology database WJLF No. 1, Budapest 2013

The other text is used to increase the efficiency of the search engine, do not read it.

4953255472018468

PEZINOK (Slovak Pezinok; Hung. Bazín; Ger. Poesing, Boesing), town in Slovakia (part of Czechoslovakia 1918–1991; since then the Slovak Republic). In 1450 Jews were permitted to live in Pezinok, which was inhabited by Germans and Slovaks. In 1529 Counts Wolfang and George von Pezinok and St. George, who were heavily in debt to Jews, began to imprison local Jews. When the mutilated body of a young boy was found, it was deemed an act of Jewish ritual murder. The imprisoned Jews were tortured in the main square until they confessed to the murder and other crimes. On May 21, 1529, some 30 men, women, and children were burned at the stake. Only children under 10 were pardoned and were converted to Christianity. The pardon granted to the victims by Emperor Ferdinand I reached them late. Jews were prohibited to live in Pezinok or even spend a night. In 1540 the Protestant reformer Andreas *Osiander published a booklet repudiating the Pezinok blood libels and incriminating the count who started it. The booklet was attacked by Johann Eck and repudiated by Martin *Luther.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15680.html

Here are the details of this most interesting conference. The array of topics selected, the international gathering of scholars, and the focus on the topic of Jewish ‘conversion’ to Christianity, mean that the papers, when published in book form, will be an important resource for anyone interested in the history of Jewish believers in Jesus.

 Debating Conversion in Different Historical Contexts

International Conference

26th -29th May 2014

An International Conference by The Center for the Study of Conversion & Inter-Religious Encounters in Cooperation with Israeli Centers of Research Excellence, Israeli Science Foundation and  Council for Higher Education

26^th -29^th May 2014, Oren Conference Hall (Ulam Knassim Aleph), Building 26,
Marcus Family Campus, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva

The first aim of the conference is to explore the broad range of available literary sources in which relevant information about converts can be found and discuss the methodology for extracting such information and analyzing it. Scholars of all disciplines, interests, geographic and chronological focuses are invited to propose papers which will shed light on the extant data and propose methodological strategies for its accumulation and analysis.

Sessions might include, but are not limited to, such topics as:

Law and conversion: courts records, regulations, and legal opinions

Religious and Secular Governance: decrees, official records,

Narrative and conversion: historiography, hagiography, biography, poetry

Intellectual and cultural brokerage: convert-authored scientific and educational treatises, poetry, and fiction

Theology: debates, exegesis, polemics, and apologetics

Archeology: tombs, dedications, houses of worship

Psychological, linguistic and semiotic analysis of conversion texts

We especially welcome papers that address related texts from the Medieval and Early Modern periods, but also welcome proposals dealing with Antiquity and the Modern Era which bear relevance to the theme of the conference.

The second aim of the conference is to showcase the proposed database and prepare the ground for international cooperation on inputting relevant data. Participants are requested to prepare materials relevant to one or more converts (or an example of mass conversion) according to the parameters of the database set out above. We will study these test cases together, input the materials, and attempt to deal with the problems that arise, thereby creating a protocol for the database and ironing out the difficulties.

See the full program here.

For several videos of the lectures see here (the funniest joke I have heard on the topic comes one minute 40 seconds into the presentation).

Reflection and Prayer: Whilst most, if not all, of the participants at this conference would not be sympathetic to Messianic Judaism today, their work sheds much light on the context, character and motivations of Jewish believers in Jesus throughout history, many of whom were forced to ‘convert’ for all the wrong reasons, including their treatment by the Church.

Lord, have mercy. Lord, open our eyes, and open our hearts, to see the way we have gone against your word, your love, and your purposes for your people Israel. Help us to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes again. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/csoc/Site%20Assets/Conference-invitation.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/4051209/Toward_a_Cultural_History_of_Scholastic_Disputation_AHR_2012_

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Debating+conversion+in+different+historical+contexts%22

http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/csoc/Pages/dcdhc.aspx

http://www.bu.edu/religion/people/faculty/bios/fredriksen/

Toward a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation

ALEX J. NOVIKOFF

Some abstracts of topics addressed

“Fear of Conversion to Judaism in Thirteenth-Century Christian Segregatory Legislation”

This landmark book-length document is key reading for anyone interested in how the Roman Catholic Church has tried to cleanse itself of anti-Judaism in biblical interpretation. Here is a section of the Preface:

Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel’s Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation?

The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground.

In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research.

However, evangelical scholars were skeptical (see below). Do read if for yourself to see if you agree.

Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, noted that the new statement seems to imply belief in a two-covenant view of salvation. “This would undercut evangelism to Jews and does not make sense of the efforts of the earliest church to reach out to Jews as seen in the New Testament,” Bock told Christianity Today. “On the key question of whether Judaism can save, the document is very unclear.”

The statement is “like the camel’s nose of universalism in the tent of the Catholic Church,” said David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus. “Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, or he’s no one’s Messiah.

“I think it’s important for us as evangelicals to recognize that the Catholic Church has long given up the notion of a forthright evangelistic outreach to the Jewish people,” Brickner said. “The evangelical church should see this as a cautionary tale. The uniqueness of Christ is what’s at stake.”

Prayer: Thank you Lord for revealing your truth to Israel and the nations through the Messiah Yeshua. Fill us with your Spirit and nourish us in your Word that we may live to serve you, and proclaim your salvation to Israel and all nations. In Yeshua’s name we pray. Amen.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

http://www.jcrelations.net/The+Jewish+People+and+their+Sacred+Scriptures+in+the+Christian+Bible%3A%3Cbr%3EA+Response+to+the+Pontifical+Biblical+Commission+Document.2757.0.html?L=3

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/august5/18.24.html

Vatican: Jews do not wait in vain for Messiah

But evangelicals question whether new statement undercuts evangelistic outreach

LaTonya Taylor/ AUGUST 5, 2002
According to a new Vatican document, recently released in English, Jews should continue to anticipate the coming of Messiah.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission released the English version of “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” in May. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger signed the work.

“The Jewish Messianic wait is not in vain,” the statement says. “It can become for us Christians a strong stimulus to maintain alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. We, like them, live in expectation. The difference is in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the traits of that Jesus who has already come and is already active and present among us.”

The document is the latest of several that some believe suggest the church is softening its stance toward Jews and their salvation. For example, several scholars said Dominus Iesus, a 2000 document that reaffirms that salvation comes through Christ and the church, does not apply to Jews the way it does to members of other non-Christian religions.

Two Covenants?
Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, noted that the new statement seems to imply belief in a two-covenant view of salvation. “This would undercut evangelism to Jews and does not make sense of the efforts of the earliest church to reach out to Jews as seen in the New Testament,” Bock told Christianity Today. “On the key question of whether Judaism can save, the document is very unclear.”

John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at the University of Chicago, said the statement raises questions about the way the church understands Jews and salvation. “It demands some kind of further reflection on the significance of the universality of Christ’s redemptive action,” he said. “To what extent, then, does their salvation depend primarily on their own covenant rather than, say, on the universal work of Christ?”

The statement is “like the camel’s nose of universalism in the tent of the Catholic Church,” said David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus. “Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, or he’s no one’s Messiah.

“I think it’s important for us as evangelicals to recognize that the Catholic Church has long given up the notion of a forthright evangelistic outreach to the Jewish people,” Brickner said. “The evangelical church should see this as a cautionary tale. The uniqueness of Christ is what’s at stake.”

Relations with Jews
Yechiel Eckstein, founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said the statement could help Christians respond to Jews in a way that is respectful, but does not compromise Christian beliefs.

Eugene Fisher, associate director for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the document may help Jews and Christians pursue a more intense level of interfaith dialogue using their shared Scriptures.

“It provides a solid basis of understanding for a local congregation to speak to a local synagogue—not only on social issues that we can get together on, but precisely on ‘Let’s talk about how we understand, say, the Book of Genesis,’ ” he said.

Leon Klenicki, a past president of the Anti-Defamation League, said the statement is good for Catholic-Jewish relations. But, he said, the document only describes Jewish beliefs and does not grant them theological validity.

Brickner cautions that interfaith dialogue, though valuable, should not replace evangelism. “This document demonstrates that those who have in one sense given up evangelism and replaced it with dialogue ultimately end up compromising the essence of the gospel itself.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/723048/posts

Despite questions, many religious leaders say the statement is a valuable step forward. Mary Boys, professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary, said the study’s emphasis on reading the Scriptures in their original context is helpful in correcting “the disparagement of Judaism that has been like a virus in Christian theology.”

Marvin Wilson, author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, agrees. “For nearly 2,000 years, the Christians took the Jewish Scriptures and proceeded to essentially disregard Jewish scholarship and Jewish interpretation.”

Wilson, professor of biblical and theological studies at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, says evangelicals need to hear the Jewish Scriptures “as a word meant for Israel, not just the word that gets validated for us because we can spiritualize it or Christolocize it, validating it by some kind of New Testament connection.”

Kunert, Rev. Karl, was born on May 25th, 1870, at Krotoschin, in Posen, one of the Prussian provinces. [Bernstein] Of his history he says:- “My father was a furrier, who, in the family of his grandfather, a rabbi at Breslau, received not only the usual superficial knowledge of Judaism, but at the same time a truly orthodox education, and, as a pious Jew, he took good care that the laws of his people should be strictly kept by his whole family.

“I was named Karl, after this great grandfather, and I was expected to follow his profession likewise. As far as I can remember, I assisted at Divine service every morning and evening from about the third year of my life, and from the age of four I joined in the prayers whenever they were offered. Nor were the other branches of my education in any way neglected. Being able to read and write when quite a little boy of five, I became well versed in the history of my people and country.

When nine years of age I was sent to the college of my native town, and later on, when my parents removed to Breslau, I visited the Catholic college of that town, but at the same time [321] the Jewish school. It was at this period of my life that I got a very strong antipathy to Christ and His adherents. Is that to be wondered at? All I saw was the thoughtless worship of Popish idols. And then, the greater evil to my young soul was wrought by my fellow-pupils, who, though educated in the Catholic faith, nevertheless found much pleasure in laughing at each new thought or religious exercise, and spent much time in reading all kinds of immoral books.

“I was very fond of reading, and in the memorable year 1885, the Lord led me to purchase the New Testament. There was a certain sacristan at Breslau who sold the books and tracts of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and often on Sundays, about dinner time, I went to see him and to buy books to read. In this way I came into possession of the New Testament in Greek, German and French. But the sacristan never uttered a word in favour of the Gospel, and I thought him a very greedy man who sold Christian books for the only purpose of gaining money. Such behaviour in a professing Christian, together with the sad experiences in my school-time, made me an embittered enemy of Christ and His Church. During my time at college I visited the University and the Rabbinic Seminary, in order to prepare myself for the chosen profession of a Rabbi. The bitter hatred of all who confessed Christ grew more and more intense, and at last, I triumphantly delivered a public lecture at Berlin against Christianity. [322]

“But already, at the time of my visiting the Rabbinic Seminary, I felt an inner restlessness, and even when I changed theological studies for other pursuits, this uneasiness would not quit me. I used to perform the Jewish law with a still greater zeal, notwithstanding that the inner voice told me most distinctly that I was wrong and would never find true happiness in this way. I could speak to no one about this conflict of my soul. The Jews did not understand me, and Christian people I most heartily despised.

“I then resolved to go to Paris, firmly believing that new surroundings would restore my peace of mind, and I felt I must conquer the heartfelt unrest at any rate. But on the very day of my arrival in Paris I took the train for Antwerp, and the next morning found me wandering about the streets of that town in dread despair. At length I resolved to return home, and that once more at Berlin I would seek rest in work. But in vain. I wandered under the old trees of the Tiergarten for long hours wrestling with my God, whom I was willing to serve, but after my own fashion as a Jew. I would not yield, and though I was hardly able to bear this inward conflict longer, I still went on with praying in public on the Day of Atonement.

“At the close of November, 1898, my anxiety grew so strong that I resolved to start for Altona, in order to be thoroughly instructed about Christianity, in a mission house. Nobody had told me of such an institution, but by chance I learned of its existence [323] from one of its former inmates. The 26th of November, 1898, found me at Hamburg. But still the old Adam would not yield, and I never entered the mission house till the utmost need forced me to go and see the Rev. A. Frank. He received me most kindly, and was willing to give me shelter in the house, but told me that, like all other inmates, I would have to engage in manual labour. I most gladly agreed to this, and I became a pupil of the mission on December 1st.

“Far from the noise and influence of the world I first met my Saviour in all His glory. There was no question now about justification by performing Moses’ laws; His light made me see my sins in all their awfulness, and I broke down crying, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear’ (Gen. iv. 13). But soon Divine love made me sing, ‘My life is preserved’ (Gen. xxxii. 30), and all my heart went out to my Saviour who had done so much for me. I was baptized on April 23rd by Pastor Aston. For a short time after I stayed at Hamburg as a private teacher, and the Lord’s blessing was with me; but I was soon asked by our dear Pastor Dworkowicz if I would be willing to work as missionary to the Jews, and he felt I might be of service at Königsberg.

Circumstances at the beginning of 1901 made my way clear. I knew then that it was after my Saviour’s will that I should enter upon this work; so I applied to the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Jews, and I was accepted on June 9th, on the [324] recommendation of Pastors Dworkowicz, Aston and Frank, of Hamburg. I commenced work there under the direction of the first named, but on March 15, 1902, I started for Königsberg, in order to labour in that city for the glory of God my Saviour. ‘The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad’ (Ps. cxxvi. 3).”

 Prayer: Thank you Lord, for this man of faith, whose travels brought him to find you, know you and serve you. Help us in our travels, both geographical and spiritual, to find true rest in you. In Yeshua’s name we pray, Amen.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37734

It has long been argued that Judaism and Hellenism have been two mutually exclusive modes of thinking, but Jenny Labendz’s book adds to the growing weight of literature challenging this point. Emerging Rabbinic Judaism engaged with the philosophical methods of debate common in the Greco-Roman world, and were often more indebted to them than is usually supposed.

Labendz’s book identifies a new sub-genre in rabbinic literature: rabbinic dialogue with a non-Jew and provides a comparison of rabbinic texts to Plato’s texts and to New Testament texts. She investigates rabbinic self-perception and self-fashioning within the non-Jewish social and intellectual world of antique Palestine, showing how the rabbis drew on Hellenistic and Roman concepts for Torah study and answering a fundamental question: was rabbinic participation in Greco-Roman society a begrudging concession or a principled choice? [OUP review]

As Labendz demonstrates, Torah study was an intellectual arena in which rabbis were extremely unlikely to look beyond their private domain. Yet despite the highly internal and self-referential nature of rabbinic Torah study, some rabbis believed that the involvement of non-Jews in rabbinic intellectual culture enriched the rabbis’ own learning and teaching. Labendz identifies a sub-genre of rabbinic texts that she terms <“Socratic Torah,>” which portrays rabbis engaging in productive dialogue with non-Jews about biblical and rabbinic law and narrative.

In these texts, rabbinic epistemology expands to include reliance not only upon Scripture and rabbinic tradition, but upon intuitions and life experiences common to Jews and non-Jews. While most scholarly readings of rabbinic dialogues with non-Jews have focused on the polemical, hostile, or anxiety-ridden nature of the interactions, Socratic Torah reveals that the presence of non-Jews was at times a welcome opportunity for the rabbis to think and speak differently about Torah.

Labendz contextualizes her explication of Socratic Torah within rabbinic literature at large, including other passages and statements about non-Jews as well as general intellectual trends in rabbinic literature, and also within cognate literatures, including Plato’s dialogues, Jewish texts of the Second Temple period, and the New Testament. While she focuses on non-Jews in the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim, the book includes chapters on the Babylonian Talmud and on the liminal figures of minim [heretics – possibly Jewish believers in Yeshua] and Matrona. The passages that make up the sub-genre of Socratic Torah serve as the entryway for a much broader understanding of rabbinic literature and rabbinic intellectual culture.

Prayer: All truth is God’s truth (Holm) and Maimonides advised “Accept the truth from whatever source it comes.” 

Lord – help us to know you as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Help us to recognize your truth as revealed in your living Word, the Messiah, your written Word, and your preached Word. Help us also to recognize your truth in all natural and human wisdom, including the wisdom and revelation in other cultures, philosophies and religious traditions. Help us not to denigrate the faith and wisdom of others, but rather see how all truth will be reconciled in your Son, our Messiah, Yeshua. Amen.

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199934560.do#

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13107549.html

Readership: Students and scholars of rabbinic history, late antiquity, Judaism

See also Miriam Leonard’s

Socrates and the Jews

HELLENISM AND HEBRAISM FROM MOSES MENDELSSOHN TO SIGMUND FREUD

MIRIAM LEONARD

264 pages | 6 halftones | 6 x 9 | © 2012

“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Asked by the early Christian Tertullian, the question was vigorously debated in the nineteenth century. While classics dominated the intellectual life of Europe, Christianity still prevailed and conflicts raged between the religious and the secular. Taking on the question of how the glories of the classical world could be reconciled with the Bible, Socrates and the Jewsexplains how Judaism played a vital role in defining modern philhellenism.

Exploring the tension between Hebraism and Hellenism, Miriam Leonard gracefully probes the philosophical tradition behind the development of classical philology and considers how the conflict became a preoccupation for the leading thinkers of modernity, including Matthew Arnold, Moses Mendelssohn, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. For each, she shows how the contrast between classical and biblical traditions is central to writings about rationalism, political subjectivity, and progress. Illustrating how the encounter between Athens and Jerusalem became a lightning rod for intellectual concerns, this book is a sophisticated addition to the history of ideas.