I made up an imaginary conversation with Jesus and wound up debating the real-life Bishop of Rome, the pope.
In my 1993 book “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus,” I imagined being present at the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus taught Torah like Moses on Sinai. I explained why, for good and substantial reasons based in the Torah, I would not have followed Jesus but would have remained true to God’s teaching to Moses. Much to my surprise, Pope Benedict XVI, in his new book “Jesus of Nazareth,” devotes much of his chapter on the Sermon on the Mount to discussing my book.
“More than other interpretations known to me, this respectful and frank dispute between a believing Jew and Jesus, the son of Abraham, has opened my eyes to the greatness of Jesus’ words and to the choice that the gospel places before us,” the pope writes.
I certainly didn’t envision this sort of a reception when I began writing “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.” I wrote that book to shed some light on why, while Christians believe in Jesus Christ and the good news of his rule in the kingdom of Heaven, Jews believe in the Torah of Moses and form on earth and in their own flesh God’s kingdom of priests and the holy people. And that belief requires faithful Jews to enter a dissent at the teachings of Jesus, on the grounds that those teachings at important points contradict the Torah.
Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai that is the Torah, he is wrong, and Moses is right. In setting forth the grounds to this unapologetic dissent, I meant to foster religious dialogue among believers, Christian and Jewish alike. For a long time, Jews have disingenuously praised Jesus as a rabbi, a Jew like us really; but to Christian faith in Jesus Christ, that affirmation is monumentally irrelevant. And for their part, Christians have praised Judaism as the religion from which Jesus came, and to us, that is hardly a vivid compliment.
Jews and Christians have avoided meeting head-on the points of substantial difference between us, not only in response to the person and claims of Jesus, but especially in addressing his teachings. He claimed to reform and to improve, “You have heard it said… but I say….” We maintain that the Torah was and is perfect and beyond improvement, and that Judaism — built upon the Torah and the prophets and writings, and the originally oral parts of the Torah written down in the Mishnah, Talmuds and Midrash — was and remains God’s will for humanity.
By that criterion I set forth a Jewish dissent to some important teachings of Jesus. It is a gesture of respect for Christians and of honor for their faith. For we can argue only if we take one another seriously. But we can enter into dialogue only if we honor both ourselves and the other. So I treated Jesus with respect, but I also meant to argue with him about things he says.
When my publisher asked me from whom to request a blurb for my book, I proposed British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Holy Office (aka the Inquisition) in the Vatican. My favorite contemporary theologian of Judaism, Rabbi Sacks and I had corresponded for years. Cardinal Ratzinger and I had previously exchanged offprints, sharing an interest in the historical study of Judaism and Christianity in the first century. He had criticized the study of the historical Jesus and found dubious its distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Since my book argued that in the Sermon on the Mount a fully articulated Christianity emerged, with Jesus portrayed as exercising the authority of God, I hoped Cardinal Ratzinger would endorse the book. This he did, promptly and generously.
That is where the matter rested for 15 years. The book made its way and went through a couple of printings and a second edition. It came out in Swedish, German, Italian and Russian, with translations in Polish and Spanish under contract. Imagine my surprise when I heard that the pope mentioned my book in his biography of Jesus.
It turns out he did more than mention it. Catholic News Service reported that Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, presenting the pope’s book at an April 13 Vatican conference, cited my book as “one of the reasons” Pope Benedict decided to write his. “What Pope Benedict says about [Neusner’s] book is so essential for understanding his own book about Jesus,” the cardinal said.
“More than discussions about exegetical methods” used to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus, the pope has “at heart the discussion with the rabbi,” Cardinal Schonborn said.
So where does the argument now stand in the light of the pope’s renewal of the discussion? The pope writes: “Neusner addresses this mysterious identification of Jesus and God that is found in the discourses of the Sermon on the Mount.… His analysis shows that this is the point where Jesus’ message diverges fundamentally from the faith of the ‘eternal Israel.’ Neusner demonstrates this after investigating Jesus’ attitude toward three fundamental commandments: the fourth commandment (to love one’s parents), the third commandment (the Sabbath), and finally the commandment to be holy as God is holy.” The pope proceeds to address all three, systematically and in clear focus.
In ancient and medieval times, disputations concerning propositions of religious truth defined the purpose of dialogue between religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity. Judaism made its case vigorously, amassing rigorous arguments built upon the facts of Scripture common to both parties to the debate. Imaginary narratives, such as Judah Halevi’s “Kuzari,” constructed a dialogue among Judaism, Christianity and Islam, a dialogue conducted by a king who sought the true religion for his kingdom. Judaism won the disputation before the king of the Khazars, at least in Judah Halevi’s formulation. But Christianity no less aggressively sought debate partners, confident of the outcome of the confrontation. Such debates attested to the common faith of both parties in the integrity of reason and in the facticity of shared Scriptures.
Disputation went out of style when religions lost their confidence in the power of reason to establish theological truth. Then, as in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s “Nathan the Wise,” religions were made to affirm a truth in common, and the differences between religions were dismissed as trivial and unimportant.
Disputations between religions lost their urgency. The heritage of the Enlightenment, with its indifference to the truth-claims of religion, fostered religious toleration and reciprocal respect in place of religious confrontation and claims to know God. Religions emerged as obstacles to the good order of society. Judeo-Christian dialogue came to serve as the medium of a politics of social conciliation, not religious inquiry into the convictions of the other. Negotiation took the place of debate, and to lay claim upon truth on behalf of one’s own religion violated the rules of good conduct.
Of course, religious toleration is a good thing. In the Middle Ages, after all, disputations often were not conducted in an atmosphere of civility. Jews frequently faced persecution, rather than respectful theological debate.
Yet the tradition of disputation also has value, so long as such debates are conducted in a manner reflecting goodwill and respect. In articulating our beliefs and having them challenged, we sharpen our understanding of our own faiths.
Two new facts have opened the way to a renewed debate about religious truth: First, Pope John XXIII signaled the desire of Catholic Christianity to bring about a reconciliation between Jews and Christians in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and he expressed respect for Judaism. Second, the Second Vatican Council began the work of formulating a Catholic theology of Judaism and other religions, an enterprise realized for Christianity in Pope John Paul II’s “Crossing the Threshold of Hope.” The counterpart for a Judaic theology of world religions is Chief Rabbi Sacks’s “The Dignity of Difference.”
It is against this backdrop that one should view my exchange with Pope Benedict. What we have done is to revive the disputation as a medium of dialogue on theological truth. In this era of relativism and creeping secularism, it is an enterprise that, I believe, has the potential to strengthen Judaism and Christianity alike.
Rabbi Jacob Neusner is a professor of the history and theology of Judaism at Bard College and a senior fellow at the college’s Institute of Advanced Theology.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
The Mirror in the Mikveh
If Rabbis Are Allowed To Intermarry, Get Ready for the Non-Jewish Rabbi
Top 10 Badass Mah Jongg Jews
Auschwitz Museum 'May Not Reflect Real Facts' Says Hungarian Lawmaker
You've successfully signed up!
With all the issues separating Judaism from Christianity, real as they are, it is encouraging that both sides are amicably discussing and debating their differences. After nearly two thousand years of animosity this is more than a step in the right direction. While Jews and Christians will never completely agree on the role of Jesus, each will acquire a respect for the other's viewpoint and the process of reconciliation will hopefully advance for the better.
I posted this one of my Jewish forums. My friend Reuven wrote the following: Steve, I only had trouble with one phrase in this article. "Jewish dissent." WE, the mother religion, speak with authority. Christianity, the rebellious daughter is the dissenting - and wrong one. Reuven
Part of the wisdom of the "discussion" between Rabbi Neusner and the Pope is that it is not founded on "Jewish dissent" or "Christian dissent" Those pseudospeciations have caused much historical tragedy and mischief, and paralyze thought. Instead, Neusner casts the matter in terms of the individual Jesus' dissent from particular aspects of the revealed Torah. That makes the matter a respectful examination of principles and issues, which can only bring people to a better understanding, as Neusner points out, of both their own beliefs and that of the other. As to who is "right" I am reminded of the famous story of the Messiah's arrival in the 21st century. The first question he is asked is "Did you come before?" In answer, the Messiah only smiled.
Trying to reconcile Christianity and Judaism is as futile and useless as trying to force a squre peg into a round hole. The fundamental theological differences and contradictions are utterly irreconcilable. There is NO common ground. For a Jew to accept Jesus as the deity is an absurdity. In his famous essay "Confrontation" published in the journal "TRADITION" in 1964, Rabbi Joesph B. Soloveitchik, of blessed memory, stated that theological debates between Jews and Christians (or other faith- based groups as well), are forbidden. No positive outcome for Judaism will ever result from such debates or disputations. Christianity, without its Jewish roots does not have a theological leg to stand on and needs Jewish Scripture, which it procedes to frequntly distort, for its own Christological foundations and beliefs. Judaism has no need for Christian dogma to support itself. Judaism has nothing to learn or gain from Christianity. It is independently theologically true, complete and sound. Let us join with our Christian brethren in secular interests and functions for the mutual benefit of all. Nevertheless, let me repeat: Theological debates between Jews and Christians are forbidden - Rabbi Jacob Neusner's view to the contrary - notwithstanding.
Considered as a "fulfillment" of Judaism, Christianity isn't very credible. In essence, it is at least as much in the tradition and spirit of pagan mystery cults, like those of Mithras and Osiris. Moreover, as it's spread it has had a tendency to incorporate elements of the religions it's supplanted (e.g., Celtic gods which have become Catholic saints).
I believe what the Rabbi and the Pope have done is to show us all that there is a form of communication and exchange that is respectful of the beliefs of the individual. Jesus broke it all down to one major word: Love. But as we all know it is not easy to Love. St. Paul tries explaining what love is. And still it is not easy to Love. Some comments even showed that one feels no need to look beyond what they think they know, yet the Rabbi and the Pope are telling us to listen and learn.
After reading this article, I look forward to reading your book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.” I believe it would be quite edifying. I am a Roman Catholic, but I must confess that I am not a big fan of Pope Benedict XVI. I respect him of course, but he is no John Paul II. Still I think he is a good man and devoted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the traditions of the Catholic Church, and I follow the actions of His papacy very closely. I therefore likewise look forward to reading His book. Bill
The views of both Christians and Jews concerning each other's religions reflects a large amount of misconception on both sides. The publication of these books can contribute immensely to a deeper understanding and respect for one another, which is the whole goal of friendly dialogue. True dialogue between "irreconcilable religions" cannot be based on the motive to convert the other, but only to understand. Neither side should have anything to fear if their theology is questioned, for Truth will be its own witness.
oy, vey
As a young Catholic, I found Rabbi Jacob's engagement with Jesus very impressive. It was the mutual respect and dignity of the enquiries that impressed me most. The Rabbi earnestly sought understanding concerning the teachings of Jesus, even though they had to part company in the end. It was very beautiful. I realise that as Catholics we look at Jewish Scripture in the light of Christ but this cannot be helped unless we dispense with this light, in which case, we would not be Catholics anyway. Jewish scripture to us is wonderful. We hear it at every mass and read it privately ourselves. As regards our attitude to the Jewish scripture, I would say we hold it (and the Jewish people who have safeguarded this treasure for thousands of years) in great affection and gratitude (historically this was not always so due to our ignorance). We will never agree but this should not prevent us from seeking the Truth together. If Rabbi Neusner's example is what we can look forward to then BRAVO.
Dear Rabbi, I am a former Benedictine monk and Catholic Catholic priest, "dispensed" from serving as a priest to get married and am now a grandfather, with two doctorates, in Theology and History of Religions, now a grandfather, who is happily enjoying the friendship of a Russian Jewish friend, Professor of Math at University of Moscow, and University of Kyoto (where I have lived for thirty-four years). Boris Feigin is now my guest here, and I have been his in Moscow. All of the above background is simply to observe that comments on our present pope are much more charitable that mine would have been. I would have compared Jesus' conversations with "the woman at the well who had five boyfriends and no husband with good Benedict XVIth's stance on birthcontrol or the use of condums by spouses one of whom has AIDS. Thank you for your gentleness. Please look at our Kyoto Cosmos Club's web-site (www.kyotocosmos.org/) of which Boris is a member. with sincere regards Morris J. Augustine
The Rabbis sometimes were wrong. For example, they claimed that Mohammedans were not idolators, failing to understand that "Allah" is actually a demonic evil entity (something born-again Christians understand). At the same time they claimed that Christians were idolators, because Jesus was worshipped as Son of God. Yet Isaiah speaks precisely of such a person "unto us a son is given".
Intriguing. How about a summary or sample quote or two from the Pope's rebuttal?
I have a question: what does orthodox judaism say about the souls, or lack thereof, of non-jews? I have heard many interpretations which seem to suggest that non-jewish souls are not fully human.
In reply to Gaspar's enquiry: Orthodox Judaism claims that ALL men are created in the Image of G-d. The soul of the non-Jew is worthy of everlasting life in the World to Come if he keeps the Seven Noachide Commandments or Laws in this world. For a list of the Seven Noachide Laws please Google the subject: Noachide Laws.
Yep an old tradition, usually ending in the burning or hanging of the Jew
I am a Catholic reading the Pope's wonderful book "Jesus of Nazareth". I was delighted and fascinated on getting to the chapter on "The Sermon on the Mount" to find the cross references to Rabbi Neusner's book so I googled him! It is very important that believers DIALOGUE with mutual respect and is something very much in line,I think, with Pope Benedict's address in Regensberg (September 2006) which got misconstrued. In this search the God of all truth will guide the hearts of those who seek and listen.
But if the enterprise will strengthen both Judaism and Christianity, then isn't it an enterprise of conciliation rather than an enterprise of disputation aimed at truth? How could incompatible claims to truth both be strengthened?
I like the distinction Rabbi Neusner makes between "Salvation" and "sanctification". This focused it for me. This seems to be the fundumental difference between the two religions. I now need to read Cardinal Ratzinger's book.
Being a Roman Catholic from Spain, where so much happened in years of lore between the believers of both creeds, I find Rabbi Neusner's text both enlightening and invigorating. I am immerse in the delightful process of reading Ratzinger's "Jesus of Nazareth" and thanks to it I have discovered Rabbi Neusner, whose book has not -to my knowledge- appeared in Spain yet. I have browsed it through Amazon and will acquire it shortly. One thing I read troubled me: why so bitter about the gospel by John? It seemed disquieting, after the deep and gentle text which accompanies it, such a straight dismissal of John as one with whom a dialogue could be started. With all my due respect, and out of sheer ignorance: what makes John so repugnant to a Jewish Rabbi?
I would respectfully suggest that Pope Benedict XVI and all those interested in Jewish-Christian dialogue and theology read "Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity" by Professor Michael S. Kogan,recently published by Oxford University Press.I believe this is a groundbreaking work.