He is not a household name amongst Torah Jewry. The name hardly registers a blip on the Orthodox radar screen. But he is quite a big name in the Conservative movement. Why should we care? Well we shouldn’t really. But his name has come up in a very interesting and perhaps significant context in the media. There are at least two articles, one in Time Magazine and one in the Forward, about an event involving this 74 year old rabbi that is quite fascinating if looked at historically.
His name is Jacob Neusner. He is a Conservative Rabbi. He is one of the foremost living scholars and thinkers of the Conservative movement, having been educated at Harvard, Oxford, and Columbia …in addition to The Jewish Theological Seminary where he was ordained. And a he is prolific writer having written or edited more than 900 books.
A quick perusal of his bio doesn’t conclusively reveal whether he can be classified as an Apikores. But when he writes, people pay attention. Professor Saul Lieberman, despite being on the faculty of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, was a believing and observant Jew who many acknowledge was a huge Talmid Chacham. He thought enough of Rabbi Neusner to publish critiques of his work.
What happened this week is that Pope Benedict also thought enough of Rabbi Neusner’s work to critique it. Pope Benedict devoted 20 pages of his new book to deal with Rabbi Neusners earlier book published in 1993 that disputes some very fundamental Christian beliefs about Jesus. From the Time article:
“Neusner asserted that any thoughtful Jew must conclude that Jesus was actually "abandoning the Torah" and reject him. He also suggested that insofar as Matthew's arguments are based in Jewish law, Christianity may be flawed by its own standards.”
He cites various reasons and proofs for those conclusions… most of which Orthodox Jews who know anything at all about Christian doctrine have themselves understood.
That a sitting Pope would now pay attention to those criticisms and try to answer them in a newly published book is a remarkable event and should not go unnoticed.
What’s the significance to us? Well, here is one thought that comes to mind. It shows a new respect for Judaism’s critiques of Christianity and addresses those critiques in a published work by its spiritual leader... for the first time (to the best of my knowledge) in its 2000 year old history. No longer do they dismiss age old questions... or just ignore or dodge them.
One of the more famous public disputes between the Church and Judaism came in the year 1263. King James of Aragon had arranged a debate between Nachmanidies, the Ramban, and Pablo Christiani, an apostate Jew who had converted to the Catholic Church.
The idea was Christiani’s and the purpose was to try and convert the Jews of Provence to Christianity. The Ramban was forced to participate. Christiani convinced King James that the Ramban’s fear of persecution if he offended the Church would cause his argument to be muted and that he, Chrisitiani would win the debate. It was presented in Barcelona in front of the King. There were a series of such debates. If I understand correctly historians generally acknowledge that the Ramban had won the deabte. But that’s not how the church presented it. They claimed victory. Furthermore they cited out of context quotes from the disputation which they asserted was blasphemous against the church, an offense then punishable by death. A sympathetic King James realized the falsity of those claims but to appease the church he instead exiled him.
But that is not how that same church handled a challenge by a Jewish Scholar today. Rabbi Neusner is no Ramban. But the Pope’s intellectual honesty didn’t allow him to ignore the proofs in Neusner’s book either. He had to answer the fundamental questions raised by a rabbi.
Whether Pope succeeded in answering the critiques or not is not the issue. The issue I think is how times have changed and how the relationship between the Church and Judaism has changed.
That said, I am not advocating theological dialogue between Judaism and other faiths. I defer to those greater than myself who have already Paskin’d that it is Assur to do that. But I can’t help wondering that if the Ramban’s disputation were held in a religious climate of the type that Pope Benedict finds himslef in today, whether a different result would have happened. Personally I think it would have changed the course of history in a major way. There likely would ultimately have been no inquisition, no holocaust, and much less if any anti-Semitism over the last millennium. Would that have made us better and more observant Jews? Or would it have accelerated our assimilation? I don’t know but it sure is interesting to think about.
His name is Jacob Neusner. He is a Conservative Rabbi. He is one of the foremost living scholars and thinkers of the Conservative movement, having been educated at Harvard, Oxford, and Columbia …in addition to The Jewish Theological Seminary where he was ordained. And a he is prolific writer having written or edited more than 900 books.
A quick perusal of his bio doesn’t conclusively reveal whether he can be classified as an Apikores. But when he writes, people pay attention. Professor Saul Lieberman, despite being on the faculty of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, was a believing and observant Jew who many acknowledge was a huge Talmid Chacham. He thought enough of Rabbi Neusner to publish critiques of his work.
What happened this week is that Pope Benedict also thought enough of Rabbi Neusner’s work to critique it. Pope Benedict devoted 20 pages of his new book to deal with Rabbi Neusners earlier book published in 1993 that disputes some very fundamental Christian beliefs about Jesus. From the Time article:
“Neusner asserted that any thoughtful Jew must conclude that Jesus was actually "abandoning the Torah" and reject him. He also suggested that insofar as Matthew's arguments are based in Jewish law, Christianity may be flawed by its own standards.”
He cites various reasons and proofs for those conclusions… most of which Orthodox Jews who know anything at all about Christian doctrine have themselves understood.
That a sitting Pope would now pay attention to those criticisms and try to answer them in a newly published book is a remarkable event and should not go unnoticed.
What’s the significance to us? Well, here is one thought that comes to mind. It shows a new respect for Judaism’s critiques of Christianity and addresses those critiques in a published work by its spiritual leader... for the first time (to the best of my knowledge) in its 2000 year old history. No longer do they dismiss age old questions... or just ignore or dodge them.
One of the more famous public disputes between the Church and Judaism came in the year 1263. King James of Aragon had arranged a debate between Nachmanidies, the Ramban, and Pablo Christiani, an apostate Jew who had converted to the Catholic Church.
The idea was Christiani’s and the purpose was to try and convert the Jews of Provence to Christianity. The Ramban was forced to participate. Christiani convinced King James that the Ramban’s fear of persecution if he offended the Church would cause his argument to be muted and that he, Chrisitiani would win the debate. It was presented in Barcelona in front of the King. There were a series of such debates. If I understand correctly historians generally acknowledge that the Ramban had won the deabte. But that’s not how the church presented it. They claimed victory. Furthermore they cited out of context quotes from the disputation which they asserted was blasphemous against the church, an offense then punishable by death. A sympathetic King James realized the falsity of those claims but to appease the church he instead exiled him.
But that is not how that same church handled a challenge by a Jewish Scholar today. Rabbi Neusner is no Ramban. But the Pope’s intellectual honesty didn’t allow him to ignore the proofs in Neusner’s book either. He had to answer the fundamental questions raised by a rabbi.
Whether Pope succeeded in answering the critiques or not is not the issue. The issue I think is how times have changed and how the relationship between the Church and Judaism has changed.
That said, I am not advocating theological dialogue between Judaism and other faiths. I defer to those greater than myself who have already Paskin’d that it is Assur to do that. But I can’t help wondering that if the Ramban’s disputation were held in a religious climate of the type that Pope Benedict finds himslef in today, whether a different result would have happened. Personally I think it would have changed the course of history in a major way. There likely would ultimately have been no inquisition, no holocaust, and much less if any anti-Semitism over the last millennium. Would that have made us better and more observant Jews? Or would it have accelerated our assimilation? I don’t know but it sure is interesting to think about.
