Posted by Quixie at 11:56 AM
Read our previous post
In a previous post I highlighted the contemporary "Jews for Jesus" practice of interpreting the Hebrew scriptures through Christian lenses. This is no new phenomenon, though. The church father Origen, who died in 254 C.E., lived in Caesaria (in modern-day Palestine). Among his contemporaries was one Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias. Both of these men wrote commentaries on Biblical books. One of these books was the Song of Solomon. Both of these gentlemen interpreted this work as allegory. However, for Origen, the book stands for God (or Christ) and its bride, the church, whereas for Yohanan, it is an allegory of love between God and his people (Israel).The Statesian scholar, Reuben Kimelman, has analysed their comments and found five consistent differences between them, corresponding to five major issues which divided Christians and Jews at the time:
- Origen writes of a covenant mediated by Moses between God and Israel, that is, an indirect contact between the two, contrasted with the direct presence of Christ. Yohanan, on the other hand, refers to the covenant as negotiated by Moses, hence received by Israel direct from God, as the 'kisses from his mouth' (SºS 1:2). Yohanan emphasizes the closeness and love between God and Israel, whereas Origen sets up a distance between them.
- According to Origen the Hebrew scripture was 'completed', or 'superceded', by the New Testament. According to Yohanan scripture is 'completed' by the 'oral Torah', the interpretive traditions of the Rabbis.
- To Origen, Christ is the central figure, replacing Abraham, and completing the reversal of Adam's sin. To Yohanan, Abraham remains in place, and Torah is the 'antidote' to sin.
- To Origen, Jerusalem is a symbol, a 'heavenly city'. To Yohanan, the earthly Jerusalem retains its status as the link between heaven and earth, the place where God's presence will again be manifest.
- Origen sees the sufferings of Israel as the proof of its repudiation by God; Yohanan accepts the suffering as the loving chastisement and discipline of a forgiving father.
While I find the "Jews for Jesus" cooption of the Jewish symbolism to be so much guileful exegesis, in Origen's case, it doesn't have the same sting, I think, because he's not setting himself up as "Jewish" in the process.
for now . . .
Ó
.
While I find the "Jews for Jesus" cooption of the Jewish symbolism to be so much guileful exegesis, in Origen's case, it doesn't have the same sting, I think, because he's not setting himself up as "Jewish" in the process.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
I agree with you, it doesn't have the same sting because he's not setting himself up to be Jewish. But I think that in both the cases of Origin and Yohanan it is a reinterpretation of the texts. And really, both are co-opting an earlier someone's writing and doctrine. On a sliding scale of my own personal relativism, I find Origin's reinterpretation less palatable than Yohanan's, after all, Yohanan has more of a claim to the religion being his.
But it is funny, because the Jews for Jesus probably think to a degree they have more of a right to co-opt the texts in a way than modern evangelicals, they are Jewish after all.
Yeah . . . I too find Origen's reinterpretation to be less palpable.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Jews for Jesus are Jewish, though. Not in any substantial sense. As soon as you take on a christology, it instantly stops being the Judaism of the Shema, in my opinion, which is arguably the essence (the One) of post-exilic Judaism.
Thanks for dropping by.
Ó
Agree again. Jewish people would take the offense at Jews for Jesus as you described. But Jews for Jesus people themselves call themselves "completed Jews" meaning they see themselves as completely Jewish not only despite having accepted the christology, but more so because of the christology itself.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess it is just a matter of everyone possibly getting offended, but who is getting offended by whom? ;^)