Not Mission but Dialogue
“Judaism and Christianity stand for two ways of interpreting Scripture. For Christians, the promises to Israel are the hope of the church. Whoever holds on to this in no way questions the foundations of Jewish-Christian dialogue.” [original article teaser]
The “Herder Korrespondenz” [”Herder Correspondence”] thought it right to refer to the factual contribution by Thomas Söding (cf. HK August 2018,13-16) on my remarks on the question of Judaism in the International Theological Journal “Communio”1 to bring another article by Michael Böhnke2, which reconfirms the prevailing condemnation of my contribution in Germany. In view of this situation, which, so to speak, wants to allow only one opinion to prevail about my remarks, namely an all-around negative reaction, it seems to me justified and sensible that I also speak out again myself – independently of the much more gratifying dialogue I was able to have with Rabbi Arie Folger, the Chief Rabbi of Vienna, and which is to appear soon in “Communio.” I would like to touch briefly on just two points.
A “substitution theory” has never existed
First: The essential assertion of Böhnke's text is that I have questioned the basic pillars of the Jewish-Christian dialogue. This assertion is simply false. Rather, my article came about because Father Norbert Hofmann, who is responsible for the Jewish question in the Pontifical Council for Unity, invited me to comment on the small document on “Theological Issues in Catholic-Jewish Relations” (December 10, 2015). The document as a whole seemed to me to be a successful synthesis of what the theological reflection after Vatican II had produced. In accordance with Father Norbert Hofmann's request, I first recorded a few comments that I wanted to pass on to him. In the course of the work, however, it seemed more appropriate to combine these remarks into a complete text. This is how the article published in “Communio” came into being. According to its genesis, it does not intend to be a fundamental denunciation of what has been worked out so far, but to continue the discussion in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.
First of all, it seemed to me necessary to clarify the term “substitution” and to get to know the “substitution theory” more precisely, since the answer to the essential questions of the dialogue between Jews and Christians seemed to depend on it. Now it had always been astonishing to me that I myself had never heard anything about this “substitution theory.” Even if I had never dealt directly thematically with the question of Christianity and Judaism, it was still astonishing to me that I did not know the most important theory about it. Therefore, I went in search of it and had to find out that a theory explicitly existing as such did not exist before the Council.
I would still find it important to find out how subsequently the idea of a “substitution theory,” which now has to be overcome, came into being. In any case, I have not denounced any consensus on this essential point, but only determined that there has not been an articulated “substitution theory” as such.
Secondly, I have distinguished between the Old Testament and Judaism more clearly than is perhaps usually the case. The Old Testament is the common Bible of Jews and Christians. After the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a new interpretation of the Old Testament developed in the community of those who believed in his resurrection, based on his proclamation as well as on his life, death and resurrection, which was initially presented in the hope of being recognized by all of Israel. This hope - as we know - was not fulfilled, so that now two ways of interpreting the common Bible more and more separated and confronted each other. The community of those who interpreted the scripture from Jesus has a number of writings that were produced in the course of the first century as “canonical,” i.e., recognized as an authentic representation of their new view. Thereby, this group of writings—standing alongside the previous canon of the—now received the name New Testament, while the hitherto sole Bible was henceforth called the Old Testament. The two “Bibles” at the same time stood very much in relation to one another in such a way that the New Testament according to the conviction of the Christians was bindingly professed to be the correct interpretation of the Old. Thus the two communities, which relied on the Bible of the Jews as their basis, were finally separated from each other as two communities (two “religions” - Judaism and Christianity).
Christianity as a new interpretation of the Old Testament
The dialogue between the two certainly remained an inner necessity because of the common basis in the “Old Testament.” It was never completely broken off, but it was more and more overshadowed by the political power of Christianity up to the attempted destruction of Judaism by the National Socialist regime. Thus, the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council, after all the suffering of the Jewish people, sought a new basis for dialogue, which so far is best formulated in the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “The Jewish People and their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible” of May 24, 2001. This document should today set the way for the Jewish-Christian conversation in terms of method and content.
A mission of the Jews is not intended and not necessary
My contribution published in “Communio” follows this guideline. Accordingly, I have tried to interpret the great promises to Israel at the same time as the hope of the Church, and in doing so to present both the dividing and the unifying aspects. In doing so, I was very pleased to be able to discover how much the new work of exegesis makes possible convergences on both sides that could hardly have been imagined before, especially in the classically divisive questions such as the figure of the Messiah and the problem of law and freedom. At my age I cannot hope to continue working on this, but it is a great encouragement to me to see so many open new possibilities.
Allow me a little perspective. The Gospel of St. Matthew ends with the commission to the disciples to go out into all the world and make disciples of Jesus to all nations (Mt 28:19). Mission to all peoples and cultures is the task that Christ has bequeathed to his people. It is about making known to people the “unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Man has a right to know God, because only one who knows God can live humanity properly. Therefore, the Great Commission is universal - with one exception: A mission of the Jews was therefore not envisaged and not necessary simply because they alone among all peoples knew the “unknown God.” For Israel, therefore, mission was not and is not valid, but dialogue about whether Jesus of Nazareth is “the Son of God, the Logos,” for whom, according to the promises made to his people, Israel was and is waiting and, without knowing it, mankind as well. To begin this dialogue anew is the task that this hour sets before us.
What Michael Böhnke has written in the “Herder Korrespon- denz” is grotesque nonsense and has nothing to do with what I have said about it. I therefore reject his article as—in the highest measure--an untrue misrepresentation.
You can find more articles on this topic in our dossier “The Future of Jewish-Christian Dialogue” at https://www.herder-korrespondenz.de.
NOTES
1 Grace and vocation without repentance. Remarks on the Treatise "De iu- daeis," in: International Catholic Journal Communio 47 [2018] 387-406.
2 cf. HK September 2018, 50-51.
This item 12765 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
