Complex Identities: Understanding the Relationship between Jews and Christians

Can Christians appreciate the Torah for anything other than bolstering their understanding of the New Testament? It's a difficult question, but I believe that an impasse exists unless it can be achieved. Many Christians embrace the historical context of their faith but quickly dismiss the logical development of rabbinic thought as one of the legitimate streams of Second Temple Judaism. Unless the Torah and, by consequence, Judaism can be understood on its own terms, then a bias will always exist.

A recent listener objected to my podcast and suggested that I was unfairly characterizing all Christians in relation to negative attitudes towards the Torah and in some cases anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Have I done so? I explain why I don't believe that is the case and what the motivation for this podcast is.

In our previous episode, we discussed the odd fact that Marcion's complete disassociation of the New Testament with the God of the Hebrew Bible or "Old Testament" in Christian parlance actually left Judaism intact as it were. Christian theologians of the second century onward opted to retain the "Old Testament" as part of their canon but at a surprising cost to the Jewish people. Does contemporary Christianity offer a more positive approach to the fulfillment and continuing emphasis on the negation of the Torah?

For Marcion, the Christian God was completely distinct from the God of the Jews. A surprising result of Marcion’s radical position, strangely enough, is that they created such a division between Judaism and Christianity that the former was left intact with its understanding of the Divine, its sacred texts, and even its different interpretation of the Messiah. Oddly enough, Marcion’s views were much more “favorably’ disposed towards Judaism than those of "Orthodox Christians".

The early Christian movement in the 2nd century faced a problem. The idea of a relationship based apart from the Torah evolved into antagonism towards the Torah. This reality became exemplified and intensified in the ultimate battle over what was considered sacred Scripture. In this episode investigate this problem by first exploring a chilling legend included in an expected source.

A memory, the historian Neil Oliver writes, is precious but fragile. Any attempt to reexamine it is fraught with difficulties. Reaching out and touching it can destroy it, just like an outstretched hand touching a reflection in a pool of water. Doing so sends ripples far beyond the point of impact. The same is the case for reconsidering anti-Judaism in many Christian groups...

I reached out to Dr. Michael Heiser several years ago. He is a well-known author and a student of ancient biblical languages and near eastern history. During our friendly email exchange, I mentioned my inter-faith endeavors as a rabbi to address Christian anti-Semitism. His response was quite surprising and made me consider how extensive the problem is.

The reality of historic Christian ant-Judaism and anti-Semitism cannot be ignored or dismissed though it often is. As difficult as it is for most sincere Christians to acknowledge, elements of Christianity have generated and spread hatred of Jews. This is not a matter of personal opinion. It's something that academics, Jewish historians, and most importantly Christian historians and theologians have documented and admitted to their credit. Many Christians desire to rectify this great injustice.

The persistent use of the term “Old Testament” is a foremost source of the tension between the two communities. Interestingly, the extent to which the term is widespread can be seen how even in Jewish academic institutions, the term is often used perhaps begrudgingly. The continued use of the term simultaneously as the compulsion to convey the Old Testament's legitimacy in relation to the New Testament highlights the problem.Many might fail to see why the simple use of terms can be so problematic. Is this not merely a product of our current world that demands political correctness?

In our previous episode, we discussed a critical passage in the New Testament that is typically viewed as anti-Jewish and anti-Semitism. I made mention of Martin Buber's Tales of the Hasidim and a specific story included that is titled "Satan's Hasidim." The story might provide a possible understanding of an alternative reading to passages in the New Testament and recenter the friction in the New Testament as an "intra-Jewish" debate much like the invectives at Qumran against the Pharisees. In the desire for intellectual honesty, I wanted to include this interesting text.

Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg, like many theologians had a choice. He could alter his understanding of Jews and the Torah in light of having lived through the Shoah, i.e., the Holocaust, or he could continue as if nothing had happened. He believed that the Torah and the "Old Testament" were no longer meaningful to Christians in the same way they were for Jews. That might make sense, but his depiction of the Torah as the sinister foil to the gospel raises something very obvious. A Christian theologian can either address anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, or they can make it worse. They can help navigate passages that are problematic in their faith tradition, or they can let them pass as if there is no issue.

The foundation for historic Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism has been deicide, i.e., the charge that Jews killed G-d incarnate. But what about another perspective. Are Christians guilty of attempting to kill the foundation for Jewish identity? As we have noted, many Christians have acknowledged the tragic history and involvement of Christians in promulgating anti-Jewish sentiments. These should be applauded and recognized. One key area remains unaddressed for many - the Torah.

Before I began my academic in Jewish studies and my interest in Jewish-Christian dialogue, I witnessed antipathy towards Judaism by many Christians. It left me bewildered as to how individuals who purportedly claimed their faith was based on the Hebrew Bible and Jewish ideas could nevertheless maintain anti-Jewish biases. One scholar who helped me realized that not all Christians held such views.

The relationship between Jews and Christians includes historical and theological elements. It also includes an emotional aspect that most often surpasses the former. The emotions go both ways. For Jews there is a natural emotional reaction connected to historic Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. Many Christians, however, hold or retain very emotional responses to Judaism that are surprising to Jews.  In order to fully appreciate this relationship and the source of Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, this component must be recognized.

This is the first episode of our second season. We now turn our attention to the topic of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism in Christianity. Most Christians would never consider themselves as holding anti-Semitic views. But anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish views often exist in latent form and in the most unexpected places.

As the rabbi of two small communities, I interact with a wide range of individuals. While the communities are small, there are always visitors. Some are Christians or former Christians moving towards Judaism. Some are Jews who for various reasons embraced Christianity. Both types of individuals often include those with less than glowing views of their former faiths and communities. They often express disdain, anger, and even hatred for their former co-religionist. This podcast, in part, is intended for them with the goal of fostering better relationships between both worlds. This is the end of season one. Continue the journey with me in season two.

The Clementine Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies in particular embraced a very different Christology than that of emerging Christian Orthodoxy. The bifurcation of God has been argued to have reflected a more authentic and ancient Jewish approach to the question of Christology. The Recognitions and the Homilies reveal however that while "binitarianism" may have been a valid description of various nascent "Christian" groups, it did not imply a singular approach to this issue. 

The Clementine literature represents many intriguing perspectives on several key ideas that were contrary to the orthodoxy of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries. The Talmud records debates regarding Reshuyot, i.e., Two Powers in Heaven, and many of these occurrences may reflect the perspectives of groups that supported the messianic claims of Jesus and perhaps were in some form connected to communities similar to the those that authored the Clementine literature.

At the request of a listener, in this episode we briefly review something I mentioned previously but did not elaborate on. The Maharal's  interpretation of Psalm 90 may provide us some sense of how the Clementine Literature derived its unique christology. The Maharal's view are interestingly similar to those of Philo of Alexandria. The Maharal's views do not imply Moses' equivalence to God, but do recognize his elevated status.

The Maharal, i.e., Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague, commented on Psalm 90 and the inclusion of the phrase "ish-Elohim". The Maharal's views are interesting and in many ways parallel the views of literature the Second Temple Judaism including the Wisdom of Sirach, the Testament of Moses, and the Exagoge of Ezekiel. This may help us understand the perspectives of Clementine Literature and its unique christology.

How did the Clementines Homilies and the Clementines Recognitions to a lesser extent, adopt very different christologies than emerging Christian orthodoxy of  their day? The answer, besides possibly relying on a unique tradition dating back to previous centuries, may lie in their approach to texts addressing exalted figures in Second Temple literature.

The Clementine Homilies adopted a Christology that was opposed to the emerging Christian orthodoxy of its day. Why did it adopt such a view? From the perspective of the author, they looked to a chain of tradition which ultimately dated back to the first century. Whether we accept this or not, an alternative should also be considered. Alternative understandings of texts may have been sufficient to provide the community and the author behind the Homilies with the ability to construct their Christology.

The Clementine Homilies adopt a perspective that is radically different from emerging Christian orthodoxy. The Homilies focus on the role of the True Prophet as the primary role of the Messiah. His role is to properly interpret the Torah but it also to draw non-Jews to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Clementine Homilies rejects the perspectives of emerging Christian orthodoxy at least in its creedal forms.

By now, its clear that the Clementines do not embrace many of the critical points associated with traditional Christian theology. There are undoubtedly points of contact and in the case of the Clementine Recognitions a suprising acceptance of a key facet of Christian thought. Nevertheless, the Clementines differ sufficiently in yet another area for us to address. This is the area of Christology. In order to tackle this we will have to trek throught the complicated world of alternative Christologies to hopefully understand why the Clementines hold their unique view.

Despite the differences in the Clementine literature, they remain united on the validity of the Torah revealed to the Jewish people. Not only does this support the Torah's continuing importance for Jews and non-Jews who embraced this messianic movement. It also validates the continuation of Jewish identity. Hence the Homilies states, "As the we know that there is only one who has made the heavens and the earth, the God of the Jews..."

We continue our review of the Clementine Recognitions. Despite some suprises, this text embraces a continuation of Torah observance for Jews and non-Jews to some extent. The non-Jews, however, represent a complicated issue for the author of this community. Their inclusion into this movement is necessary but has also causes  chaos to arise. 

There are two primary texts that form the core of the Clementine literature. The first is the Homilies. The second is the Recognitions. The two texts have much in agreement, but there are also significant differences. The Homilies rejects contemporary christological views that emphasize divine equivalence. The Recognitions in contrast adopt a more classical Christian approach at least on the surface. Does this imply a division between the original community that authored the Homilies?

The Clementine Homilies embrace a surprisingly pluralistic approach to faith. Moses and Jesus are both legitimate teachers. If one does not accept the other, but adheres to one, they are not necessarily condemned. A key caveat is the lack of animus towards the other. Furthermore, a consistent and enduring commitment to the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, from the perspectives of the Homilies, is the ultimate arbiter of true faith.

The Homilies have already shown several radical points on simply the continuing validity of Torah observance for Jews, but also show an expectatio non-Jews should observe many facets of the Torah. The Homilies also provides a radical expectation of tolerance and respect between Jews who did not embrace the messianic claims of the Homilies and those who did. Moses and Jesus are seen as two separate paths revealing to Jews and non-Jews the divine plan and hence faithful adherence to one, demands respect by the other side.

The Clementine Homilies have already shown radically different perspectives on the Torah and its observance among Jews and Gentiles. This view is surprising in a text that scholars generally characterize as Christian. In this episode we discover several other theological views in the Homilies which likely responded to emerging Christian orthodoxy in late antiquity. 

The Clementine Homilies adopt the radical perspective of arguing for an oral tradition that correctly interprets the written Torah. The Homilies warn against external influences that confuse the Torah's true meaning. This statement may likely be directed against contemporary Christian groups that had increasingly become anti-Torah and anti-Jewish. The Clementine literature stands alone in the world of literature we can designate as Christian in embracing such a view, revealing its clear Jewish perspectives once again.

The Clementine Homilies alter our expectations radically regarding what to expect from a group that is generally described as Christian. The Homilies sees the oral transmission of the Torah is actually more important than the written text. The written Torah can only be understood by a "tradition" that illuminates and effectively corrects the text. Its a radical approach which in many ways parallels similiar approaches in rabbinic circles.

In this episode, we continue our trek through the Clementine Homilies by briefly discussing Simon Magus. He appears in the canonical book of Acts. In the Homilies, he appears as a principal opponent of the community behind the Clementine Homilies. Simon appears to be combination of Marcionite and Pauline thought as understood by the author of the Homilies. In response, the Homilies introduces the concept of the oral transmission of the Torah, textual corruption, and a startingly view of the sacrifices and the Temple.

The Clementine Homilies take a very interesting approach to non-Jews or Gentiles. To free themselves from demonic influence, non-Jews can undergo tevilah, i.e., immersion, and are expected commandments of the Torah that relate to them.

The Clementine Homilies reveal a very unique and fascinating community in antiquity. The Clementine Homilies see the world very simply. There are Jews and there are pagans. Jews are given the Torah and are immune to demonic forces if they are observant. Pagans are subject to the world of the demonic until they make a choice. 

The last two episodes focused on the question "What is a Judaism?" We discovered two perspectives on this issue. We now turn our attention to a fascinating community that in many ways challenges our assumptions about Jewish and Christian identity. We begin to consider the Clementine Literature and the high unusual perspectives it maintained which differed sharply from emerging orthodox Christianity and maintained or borrowed theological ideas from the rabbinic Jewish community.

What is a Judaism? Did the early adherents of the Jesus movement meet the requirements of a Judaism? Well of course, it depends who you ask. Rabbi Jacob Neusner gives us an interesting definition. Dr. Shaye Cohen provides us with additional insight. This is part 1 of this fascinating discussion.

Chanukah is fast approaching as I record this episode. We're all familiar with the Maccabees fighting the Seleucids over forced Hellenization, but how many of us remember that the dividing lines were also between Jews who adopted Hellenism and those who opposed it. Within a generation, even descendants of the Maccabees had Greek names. We can see this dividing line in the New Testament itself between Hebrews and Hellenists and this friction may represent a key to understanding the divergent paths which may have eventually contributed to the rise of Christianity we know in later centuries.

It seems strange to many people that a rabbi spends so much time speaking about the complex relationship between Judaism and Christianity. There is a reason for this and it explains why I have so much passion in helping others understand this issue.

In our previous episode we began a discussion on several groups that appear to have occupied the middle ground along the continuum of groups we define todayas Jewish or Christian. We start by trying to understand why these groups may have embraced unique theological views. For example, whether they were linked to the first century community that embraced the messianic claims of Jesus or not, why did they hold certain views that stood in opposition to the perspectives of emerging orthodox Christianity? Why did they some hold views that appear very much connected to rabbinic perspectives, but completely different in other areas.

In this episode we begin the process of reviewing various groups in the second, third, and fourth centuries that espoused what we identify as Christian elements also maintained clear connections to ideas and practices we generally recognize as Jewish. Of course, what we mean by Jewish is nowadays a subject of great debate. These groups defied the theoretical boundaries set by emerging Christian and Rabbinic circles.

What do we mean by Christianity or Judaism when we use these terms? Theological suppositions often cloud our study. Many people often assume that what they see in the 21st century reflects the exact same practices of either group in antiquity. A religious historian's goal, however is to go beyond assumptions and uncover the past. We explore this in our latest pod cast episode.

The limits of rabbinic authority in antiquity are critical to our discussion on the relationship between emerging Jewish and Christian identities. The rabbinic class undoubtedly had influence and even power, but it tempered by a number of factors that are important to consider in how we understand the differences and boundaries between both communities.