''Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill teaches at Yeshiva University and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and is also the Founder and Director of Kavvanah: Center for Jewish Thought. He is the author of a forthcoming monograph on Orthodox approaches to other religions. The following is a summary and sample of it. Omitted are chapters on encountering Easter religions, a phenomenology of common techniques, and the implications for this paper of [[Rabbi Soloveitchik's "Confrontation"|Rabbi Soloveitchik's dialectic position]]. This paper was commissioned by the World Jewish Congress for the "World Symposium of Catholic Cardinals and Jewish Leaders," January 19-20, 2004 in New York City.''
In this paper, I present a range of traditional sources bearing on the encounter between Judaism and other religions. These have been selected with an aim of highlighting the widest array of opinions, for the purpose of beginning discussion; this is not designed to be either a complete anthology of relevant sources, or a definitive word on the meaning of these texts. These selections will, I believe, clarify the wisdom of Alon Goshen-Gottstein’s recent assertion that the entry of Orthodox Jews to the Jewish-Christian dialogue "has expanded the boundaries of the conversation and introduced new dimensions."<ref>Alon Goshen-Gottstein, [1http://www.jcrelations.net/en/displayItem.php?id=1754 "Jewish-Christian Relations: From Historical Past to Theological Future" Ecumenism No. 146 (2002)].</ref>
==Key difference in the encounter in the 20th Century==
These traditional opinions highlight a key difference between the conceptualization of encounter in the 20th Century, and the way prior generations viewed the question of Christianity. In particular, while contemporary Jews have seen themselves as members of the Jewish community, and conceptualized their dialogue partners as members of a corresponding Christian community, prior generations took a theological rather than sociological approach, examining the role of Christianity, as a religion, within the theological constructs of Judaism.
One very important piece obvious from the texts is how they disprove the narratives of recent historians, who claimed that the historical shifts from medieval to modern times were matched by a parallel movement from “exclusiveness to tolerance,” to quote the title of a volume by eminent Jewish historian Jacob Katz. In this view, Jews moved from the Ghetto restrictions to enlightenment enfranchisement and emancipation, and, corresponding to changing Gentile attitudes, their own views toward Christians moved from one of polemics to the universal tolerance of a Mendelssohn.[2]<ref>Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1969.</ref>
In line with my reading of the texts, I emphatically reject the contention that encounter is only possible as a consequence of our modern existence and that we relate as Jews to non-Jews. The difference between our era of encounter and the medieval period is not essential, but only the passing of time.
==Reject the solution of meeting as secular people==
In order to come to terms with the current clash of civilizations and the increasing tensions between forces of globalization and those of tradition, we need to view the conflict as a moral challenge that cannot be considered as resolved through a survival of the fittest or through demonologizing the other sides.[3] <ref>When we mention the clash of civilizations we think of either the Spengler battle, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York : Simon & Schuster, c1996); or a more benign interplay in individual lives, see Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York : Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1999).</ref> Religion offers an essential means of providing dignity, sanctity, and spirituality to meet these new challenges. I reject the solution of meeting as secular people; I want doctrine to serve as meeting place of encounter with our globalization. In the current age, no longer do people shelve their religion in encountering others. Facing others in a post-secular age, therefore, means that we must choose the moderate positions in our own tradition as a basis for discussion.
Traditional texts offer enough resources to make this possible.
The sources we will be examining need to be categorized in multiple dimensions; to divide them simply between “pro-dialogue” and “anti-dialogue” would be to erase their richness.
The most obvious of these dimensions is that which categorizes positions as exclusivist, inclusivist, or universalist/pluralistic.[4]<ref>This terminology of exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist owes their popularity to John Hick, God has Many Names (London: Macmillian,1980).</ref>
===Exclusivist===
As religious Jews, we need not always choose one position over the others; each can play a role in our religious lives. There will be days when our recitation of Shema will carry universalistic intentions, and days where we will close our eyes and think exclusively. Among the components from which we build our religious lives and identity are the exclusive martyrdoms of the Maccabees and Crusader victims; the inclusivism of the Psalms, the “Alenu,” and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch; and the universalism of Isaiah and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook.
I am using models of theological positions. Some figures will have their statements divided between several categories. Others will be subdivided in the same category, since each of the three categories can be further subdivided into historical-mission, metaphysical, and humanist, these subdivisions will be explained in the course of presenting the texts.[5] <ref>In recent years, the inclusivist position has been further subdivided into pluralist inclusivist that acknowledges that the other faiths could be true, into the avoidance of a-priori monism of truth by restricting oneself to one’s own texts, and the witnessing one’s own faith without making judgments about others. This essay has been influenced by all of these approaches. For these approaches, respectively, see Schubert M. Ogden, Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1992); Paul J. Griffiths, “Modalizing the Theology of Religions,” in The Journal of Religion 73 (1993): 382-389; Kateryn Tanner, “Respect for Other Religions: A Christian Antidote to Colonialist Discourse” Modern Theology 9:1 (January:1993):1-18.</ref>
==Biblical and Talmudic Premises==
===The Tanakh===
The Tanakh demands that Jews have no foreign gods, and points out the foolishness and abomination of heathen practices. Nonetheless, gentiles are generally allowed to worship gods. For example, in the book of Ruth, Orpah is not chastised for returning to her father’s god. Isaiah offers us a universalistic vision of God’s dominion over the world, while envisioning the Jewish people as chosen by God. Zephaniah and Zechariah offer an eschatological vision of all people serving one God.[6]<ref>Ruth chapter 1, Zephaniah 3:9, Zechariah 14:9.</ref>
===The Talmud===
The Talmud has a tractate entitled Avodah Zarah, literally “foreign worship,” but the focus is more about the “other” – gentiles, pagans and foreigners – than about the cults of antiquity and their religious content or significance. There is a distrust of gentiles as an ethnic other; so much so that one should avoid even receiving a haircut from a gentile. Greco-Roman religion is the subject of disrespect and disdain from the Talmudic Sages, who suggest obscene variations on the names of the ancient deities.[7]<ref>Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 46a, Megillah 25b.</ref>
Yet the Talmud maintains a category of virtuous gentiles who merit the world to come; despite the general anti-gentile opprobrium, the rabbis seems willing to adopt the view that "some of my best friends are pagans." They are offering a tolerance lacking a universal theory of religious salvation; it is the virtuous life, apparently divorced from religion, that gets one into heaven.
As Robert Goldenberg summarized his study of ancient Jewish attitudes toward non-Jews, "Neither Jewish monotheism nor Jewish ‘universalism’ necessarily entailed that the one true God could only be reached through Israel's covenant with Him."[8]<ref>Robert Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not (New York: NYU Press, 1998), p.108.</ref>
===The interpretive tradition===
Similarly, all religions that came after the Torah of Moses are part of the process of bringing humanity closer to the essence of Judaism, even through they appear its opposite. The nations serve to introduce and pave the way for the long-awaited messiah. He is the fruit and they, in turn, will all become his fruit when they acknowledge him. Then all nations will become one tree, recognizing the common root they had previously scorned. (Kuzari IV:23)
For Yehudah Halevi, Israel is a chosen people, who transform the world. Other religions share a common root of Judaism; all religions are of the same tree with Judaism as the trunk.[9] <ref>Yehudah Halevi's finding of a common root and common endpoint is reminiscent of the thinking of Nostra Aetate</ref> The religions are not needed for Jewish self-understanding, but to fail to recognize the nature of the branch religions is to fail to properly understand the world and, in effect, God’s providential plan.
Many misread Yehudah Halevi's position as teaching the uniqueness of Judaism and the corollary falseness of other religions; we are true and they are wrong. However, as the above passage shows, the correct reading is that the other religions are only limbs on the trunk of Judaism. Even Halevi's limiting of prophecy to Judaism does not preclude the availability of some form of revelation for all. The book itself opens with a story of a king getting inspiration from God through a true dream and thereby coming to learn of the higher Mosaic revelation.[10]<ref>Halevi grants gentiles the ability of gentiles to receive revelation provided a distinction is made between prophets and ordinary revelation, see Robert Eisen, “The Problem of the King's Dream and Non-Jewish Prophecy in Judah Halevi's ‘Kuzari’" JJTP 3,2 (1994): 231-247.</ref>
While I dealt with Yehudah Halevi, some of the same sentiments are found in Maimonides' writings, embedded within a more theologically contradictory halakhic grid. The complexity of Maimonides' position is beyond the scope of this paper.
:The people of Abraham, in private and in public, follow one calling: to become a blessing. They dedicate themselves to the Divine purpose of bringing happiness to the world by serving as model for all nations and to restore mankind to the pure spiritual status that Adam had possessed. God will grant His blessing of the renewal of life and the awakening and enlightenment of the nations, and the name of the People of Abraham shall shine forth. (Commentary on Genesis, ad loc.)
The prophetic call of Jews as “light unto the nation” plays a central role throughout Hirsch’s theology. It is not only a tool by which to interpret non-Jewish religions, but serves as a consistent trope in his interpretations of the mitzvoth. Jews are to be role models, spreading the enlightenment of experienced, non-intellectual knowledge of God to all. Hirsch bases this theology on his direct readings of the words of scripture mediated by the thirteenth-century commentary of Rabbi David Kimkhi, who had already explained the verses as teaching that the goal of Judaism is to be a Light unto the Nations.[<ref>The verses that Hirsch used, that have comments of Radak, include: Isaiah 2:2-4, 11]:6-9 42:5-7, 55:3-5- 60:3, Psalm 67, Zechariah 9:1, 14:9.</ref>
It is also worth noting that Hirsch’s approach is practically devoid of metaphysics. There is no talk of roots and branches, but rather of models and influences. These traits make him a useful starting point for contemporary Jewish theologies without metaphysics.
====Rav Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook====
Rav Abraham Isaac Kook was the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the Zionist return to the land of Israel. His writings embrace modernism by offering a vision of the restored land of Israel, at once evolutionary and Hegelian while at the same time mystical and messianic. His influence is widespread and influential as a Zionist dream of renewal of religious Judaism.
Rav Kook does not seem to assign special historical significance to Christianity and Islam for their status as “branches.” In a move that accepts the already-globalizing situation of the early 20th century, even the non-Abrahamic religions contain gold and holiness, which await elevation and unity with the Source of Israel. One can encounter and empirically study them. Yet, it is a Jewish task to purify these other religions. The actual process, however, of study, purification, and unification is left frustratingly vague. Nevertheless, what is clear, though, is that, personally, Rav Kook was able to look at other religions –and even atheism – and see the Truth of Torah within them.
====Concluding thoughts on historical inclusivism====
The Historical inclusivist approach enables Judaism to respect and appreciate Islam and Christianity on its own terms, if not on theirs. Like its metaphysical variation, it transforms the millennia of Diaspora into part of the redemptive progress of history, with all that entails for remembering and feeling the pains accumulated along the way.
When God unites with Israel and one merges with the other, then all the heavenly princes will be made into one group to worship God, may He be Blessed. They will all serve the community of Israel, because it is from her that they will be sustained.
:As it is said [in the Rosh Hashanah liturgy], ‘Therefore make all Your Creation aware of Your awe, YHVH our God, and Your creatures will fear You and all of Creation will bow before You as one unity to do Your will with a pure heart.’ God will remove all His appellations in the future in order to receive the community of Israel so that He can unite with Her, then all the nations will serve God; the nations will be outside and the Name YHVH will stand inside with the community of Israel joyful and tranquil.[12]<ref>Joseph Gikkitila, Gate of Lights, translated with an introduction by Avi Weinstein (San Francisco: HarperCollins, c1994). All quotes are from Gate 5.</ref>
The notion that each of the nations has a corresponding heavenly power – an angel – goes back at least to Rabbinic sources. In classical contexts, it enables a distinction between direct Divine providence granted to Jews, and the indirect guidance granted through the ministering angels to the other nations. Here, Gikkitila is adding the notion of the Divine names. The apparent implication is that the religions of the gentiles provide access to some of the names of God, even if not as directly as does Judaism, which connects Israel to the greatest and most powerful of names, YHVH.
There are many variants on this approach; all of them accepting metaphysical structures. (See R. Elijah Benamozegh below as an example.)
====Concluding thoughts on metaphysical inclusivism====
These metaphysical constructs indicate a basis for Jewish-Christian respect and encounter not predicated on any of the non-religious principals of modernity. In this, it might be a particularly useful basis for discussions with metaphysically-inclined churches; I can envision a mutual encounter with the Greek Orthodox Church concerning theories of Divine glory, blessings and energies. However, metaphysical models are limited in their utility in an era where few embrace, or even understand, metaphysical language. Premising our encounter on a theology of angels and the power of Divine names would not be prudent for a Jewish community which put little stock in either.
Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, the great eleventh-century commentator on the Bible and Talmud is a standard in the Jewish curriculum. Because Rashi is seen as the indispensable commentator, it is difficult to overstate his influence on contemporary discourse. In traditional settings, Torah and, later, Talmud are approached first, and often exclusively, through the lens of Rashi’s commentary. He cites many of the polemical and negative rabbinic statements about gentiles or their typological equivalents in Noah, Esau, and Bilaam. Even his very first comment on the Bible contains his own gloss on the Midrash, viewing the gentiles as armed robbers. His particularism is shown in statements such as: “I ask from You that Your Shekhinah should not rest anymore on the nations of the world and we will be separate from all other nations. (Commentary to Exodus 33:16)
Rashi typified the particularism of many of his successors in Franco-German Jewish culture. I will not delineate these variants, nor will I relate all the negative images of Christianity left in the writings of medieval Ashkenaz Jewry.[13]<ref>Israel Jacob Yuval, Shene Goyim be-Vitnekh (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2000).</ref>
Ours is not the first generation of Jews bothered Rashi’s exclusionist, anti-gentile tone. Sifthei Hakhamim, by Rabbi Shabbatai Bass, a sixteenth-century commentary on Rashi, consistently reworks Rashi to impose a more ethical reading. However, the role of these comments of Rashi in the Jewish education system today remains problematic.
Maharal embraces separation and particularism. Where Yehudah Halevi used the metaphor of the fruit to refer to the branch religions that sprout with Judaism, Maharal gives the metaphor the opposite valence: Israel is the fruit whose connection with the other nations – the shell – only decreases with time. This opposition between Israel and the world – Edom – is real and absolute, a zero-sum game where cooperation is not conceivable.
====Rabbi Zevi Yehudah Kook====
Zevi Yehudah Kook was the son of Rav Kook, he was blessed with a long life and many students. His ideology makes him the father of the settler movement and therefore influential in late twentieth-century Israeli political life.
The fruit of Zevi Yehudah Kook’s exclusivist ideology can be seen in the conflict his students have caused and embraced with the Palestinians. The ideology itself is noteworthy for a staunch anti-Christianity that culls two millennia of sources without acknowledging any of the countervailing traditions. For Zevi Yehudah Kook, the attack on Christianity is motivated by the conflict with the wider Western culture which both threatens the Jewish purity of Israel from within and opposes his messianic settlement drive from without. Until now, none of his writings on Christianity have been translated into English; because I do not want to be his first translator, I am presenting his views in summary only.
Zevi Yehudah Kook resurrects many of the classic anti-Christian polemics with a vigor not seen for centuries. Among them: Christianity should be dismissed as an internal Jewish heresy; God the creator clearly cannot be a man; the Jewish God is alive whereas the Christian’s is dead. Christianity is the refuse of Israel, in line with the ancient Talmudic portrayals of Jesus as boiling in excrement.<ref>Zevi Yehudah Kook, Judaism and Christianity [14Hebrew](Beit El: 2001).</ref>
If asked: What about the many arguments that, despite the falsity of Christian truth claims, the religion still constitutes a path to God? Like Wahabi Fundamentalism within Islam, Zevi Yehudah denies the continuous relevance of the cosmopolitan ages of synthesis, choosing instead to return to the polemical Midrash and Maharal.
This dualism needs to be reread from our vantage of connection to the classic texts.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes dealt with these texts by claiming that rabbinic texts were written in a binary black and white, good and evil style for didactic purposes.[15] <ref>Z. H. Chajes, The Student's Guide through the Talmud (New York : P. Feldheim, c1960).</ref> While this is a fine approach for dealing with rabbinic texts and it should be developed further, the demonic dualism and the dehumanization texts also need to be addressed.
An example of the possibilities of rereading can be seen in the history of the statements in Tanya written by R. Schneur Zalman of Liady, the founder of the Chabad Hasidic dynasty. He clearly states at the beginning of his work Likkute Amarim (Tanya) that, as presented in Lurianic writings, gentiles do not have souls.[16]<ref>See Tanya, chapter 1; Iggeret haKodesh 25.</ref>
Nevertheless, this dualistic statement was transformed by later generations of Chabad thinkers into a historical inclusivism, in which the gentiles today are part of the messianic progress; or into a hierarchal inclusivism, in which the gentiles have greater needs to purify themselves.<ref>Yitzhak Nahmani,Sefer Torat Ha-gilgul, Nefesh, Ruah U-neshamah. (Netanyah : Y. Nahmani, 755 [171995]). In this volume Nahmani tries to downplay the dualism by rejecting the theory that gentile souls come from the evil side. Using sources from elsewhere, Nahamni argues that all souls originate in Adam, and even Esau and Ishmael have Divine lights.</ref>
====Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn====
:The "spreading of the wellsprings" of Chassidic teachings should not be limited to Jews alone, but should be extended outward to non-Jews as well. As [Maimonides] states, the purpose of giving the Torah was to bring peace to the world (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Chanukah 4:14). Similarly, he writes that every Jew is obliged to try and influence those who are not Jewish to fulfill the Seven Laws of Noah. Maimonides also states that one of the achievements of the Messiah will be to spiritually refine and elevate the nations of the world until they, too, become aware of God to the point where Godliness will be revealed to every flesh, non-Jews.
Since the rewards of Torah come "measure for measure" it follows that among the efforts to bring the messianic age must be the effort to spread the Seven Laws of Noah, as well as the wellsprings of Chassidic teachings associated with them, outward to non-Jews. Indeed, the Prophets tell us, "Nations shall walk in your light." Although the Torah was given to the people of Israel, it will also serve as a light to the nations.[18]<ref>Likkute Sikhot 19 Kislev 5743 -1982.</ref>
It was important to take the trouble to present these rereading, even though many modern Jews do not have an interest in Hasidic doctrine, in order to show that even seemingly impossible to reread texts can be reread, even by conservative thinkers.
====Immanuel of Rome====
Immanuel of Rome was a philosophically trained poet of thirteenth-century Italy, a student of Zerachia Hen, a confrere to Dante, and an antagonist of the more traditional Rabbi Hillel of Verona. His poetry was chastised as too risqué risque' already in his lifetime, and his imitation of Dante's Divine Comedy, called Tofet veEden was universalistic in orientation. Immanuel’s description is lacking in its engagement with Rabbinical proof texts, similar to modern non-traditional thinkers. Hence, he is not an authoritative text for traditional thought. Nevertheless, he allows us a glimpse of the forces that shaped traditional Jewish thought, in that, his thirteenth-century critic Hillel of Verona formulated an inclusive humanism that was to influence the position of Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno (discussed above). He also shows us that universalist positions are not limited to the modern era or due to post Enlightenment ideas of tolerance, liberalism, and secularism.
The rewarded saints observed by the narrator of the epic have reached their non-Jewish paradise through intellectual reasoning. The righteous of the nations – a category mentioned but not explicated in the Talmud – are here given form in this description of paradise. For Immanuel of Rome, paradise can be reached through a universal path consisting of self-discovery and intellectual discovery. The various forms of traditional religion, each with its own particular ethnicity, theology, and approach to naming God, pale before the universal truth.
<blockquote>:These are the pious among the gentile state:who by their intellect and wisdom have become great…:whist they with their intelligence searched out who formed them, and who was the Creator,:And as they passed the Faiths of all other under examination…:But they chose of all beliefs views such as seemed to them right,:Upon which men versed in conscience had no cause to fight…:And when men boastfully would attach a name to God, our hearts trembled, it shook our frame to think that each and every people should give Him some definite name.</blockquote> :We, however say, Be His name whatsoever, we believe in the First Existence, the True One, whom we never from our life can ever sever. (Immanuel ben Solomon, Tophet and Eden, trans. Hermann Gollancz [London: University of London Press, 1921].)
===Universalism Position #2 -Revelation===
====Rabbi Nathaniel ibn Fayumi====
An example of a medieval who makes use of these themes is the twelfth-century Yemenite Nathaniel Ibn Fayumi who presents a multi-covenant theory without the need to justify or defend it. "God permitted to every people something he forbade to others... God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language." (Bustan alAql, chap. 6)[19] <ref>The Garden of Wisdom, translated D. Levene, (Columbia Univ. Press, 1907).</ref> He simply bases himself on the Rabbinic and Maimonidean theology that prophecy is available to all.
====Rabbi Jonathan Sacks====
The current Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks became embroiled in controversy for stating a similar sentiment in the first edition of his work, The Dignity of Difference, writing, “In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims." He was forced to clarify the statement as, "As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with a singular people, but that does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures, and faiths finding their own relationship with God within the shared frame of Noahide law.”[20]<ref>The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations (London, New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 55. World Wide Religious News 2/15/03.</ref>
====Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch====
Mendes (1852-1937) served as rabbi of New York’s traditional Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, in which capacity he attended the 1893 Parliament of Religions in Chicago. He was the first president of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the first professor of homiletics at Rabbi Isaac Elhanan Theological Seminary in New York. He wrote:
:There is a legend that, when Adam and Eve were turned out of Eden or earthy paradise, an angel smashed the gates, and the fragments flying all over the earth are the precious stones. We can carry the legend further. The precious stones were picked up by the various religions and philosophers of the world. Each claimed and claims that its own fragment alone reflects the light of heaven, forgetting the setting and incrustations which time has added. Patience my brother. In God's own time we shall, all of us, fit our fragments together and reconstruct the gates of paradise. There will be an era of reconciliation of all living faiths and systems, the era of all being in at-one-ment, or atonement, with God. Through the gates shall all people pass to the foot of God's throne.[21]<ref>Henry Pereira Mendes, "Orthodox or Historical Judaism" The Dawn of Religious Pluralism: Voices from the World's Parliament of Religions, 1893, edited with introductions Richard Hughes Seager (La Salle IL, Open Court, 1993), 328-330, reprinted from Walter R. Houghton ed. Neely's History of the Parliament of Religions (Chicago:1894), 217-8.</ref>
Here we have an Orthodox thinker who clearly affirms a common core of all religions, which over time became encrusted and thereby lead to devolution of various faiths. In the modern age we now seek a collective activity of all humanity’s seeking to return to the original core. The Biblical vision of becoming a light unto the nations is as part of a joint effort to worship together. The eventual goal is a messianic restoration to Eden.
Rabbi Israel Lipschutz (1782-1860) from the port city of Danzig, offers a surprising universalistic sentiment in his Mishnah commentary.
:R. Elazar ben Azaryah said, "If there is no Torah there is no civilization [derech eretz: lit. way of the land.]." The word "Torah" here cannot be meant literally, since there are many ignorant people who have not learned it, and many pious among the gentiles who do not keep the Torah and yet are ethical and follow the “way of the land.” Rather, the correct interpretation seems to me to be that every people has its own Divine religion, which comprises three foundational principles, (1) belief in a revealed Torah, (2) belief in reward and punishment, and (3) belief in an afterlife. They only disagree on the interpretation of these principles. These three principles are what are called here "Torah."[22]<ref>Tiferet Yisrael, Avot 3:17.</ref></blockquote>
Lipschutz's offers a vision of tolerance based on a generic sense of revelation, reward, and afterlife found in all religions. Rather than approaching religions as an other, he senses a common core based on morality. If one wanted to develop an approach to non-Abrahamic faiths, then his general definitions offer a useful starting point. For him, enlightenment, karma, and reincarnation could be considered valued forms of Torah for gentiles.
Our next thinker did actually embrace the reading of works of other faiths. Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (1823-1900) was a preacher and essayist in nineteenth-century Italy, who incorporated the new finding of comparative religion in his Biblical commentaries and who wanted to bring Gentiles, even his Christian contemporaries, back to a true universal Monotheism based on the seven Noahide laws.
In many ways he continues the inclusive-hierarchy model of valuing Jewish monotheism over the trinity and the inclusive-mission model by placing Judaism as the heart of the nations, with the nations following the Noahide laws and the Jews following the commandments. He is most original when he acknowledges the cultural embeddedness of religion and that there is truth in every religion even if their conceptions of monotheism and revelation are deficient. He has theological statements on why Judaism rejects the Trinity, why the New Testament cannot supersede the Sinai revelation, and why Jews accept a progressive revelation in the oral law.
:The idea of the personality of God necessarily implies that of the unity of substance. …Christianity which possesses a trinity of persons while maintaining the unity of God's substance…might best be called tritheism.[23]<ref>Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, translated by Maxwell Luria (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995), 68.</ref>
:As for those who tell us that Christianity embodies a new revelation, do they not see that if the Christian mysteries were truly a radical innovation, then the entire system of Divine revelation would be overturned?… It could no longer be a question of a unique and perfect Revelation coming, like the material creation, from the sovereign intelligence of God….From the moment that one abandons the notion of a unique revelation -- with the intention of combating Judaism -- there remains only the hypothesis of multiple religions.
:A glance at the pagan mysteries will enable us to understand very clearly the influence of paganism upon the educated class in Israel.[24]<ref>Ibid, 77.</ref>
:Through dispersion among gentiles, [Judaism] gathers and incorporates the fragments of truth wherever it finds them scattered.[25]<ref>Ibid, 75.</ref>
He finds Christianity wanting on monotheism because it has a trinity, and on revelation because revelation is to be eternal and unique, incapable of being superseded by later revelations. Yet, in his writings, he openly compares and contrasts to Judaism, Christianity, pagan mysteries, Taoism, and Hinduism. He creates a vision of a single world religion with Judaism at the pinnacle and that all religions were needed for the progress of mankind.
Part of the task of encounter is to examine where and how our perceptions of God differ, a task part theological, part academic, and part phenomenological. Just as the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions have been enriched by centuries of theologians, philosophers and mystics, each adding to their tradition’s perception of the Divine, encounter opens the possibilities of further enriching our access to Holiness.
Since, many of the medieval Jewish sources quoted above recognize that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are in agreement about the essential nature of God, it allowed the “first Alexandria declaration of the religious Leaders of the Holy Land: 2001,” to be signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders as well as Sefardic chief rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron and Rabbi Michael Melchior. The declaration states: "In the Name of God who is Almighty, Merciful and Compassionate, we who have gathered as religious leaders from the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities… According to our faith traditions, killing innocents in the name of God is a desecration of his Holy Name."<ref>[26http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/alexandria2002.htm The First Alexandria Declaration].</ref>
In this statement, three faith communities have united in acknowledging God and what Jewish traditions declare to be the most important Divine attributes: The Omnipotent Creator, the Compassionate Commander of morals, the Holy One whose name can be praised or desecrated.
==References==
[1] Alon Goshen-Gottstein, [http://www.jcrelations.net/en/displayItem.php?id=1754 "Jewish-Christian Relations: From Historical Past to Theological Future" Ecumenism No. 146 (2002)].[2] Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1969.[3] When we mention the clash of civilizations we think of either the Spengler battle, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York : Simon & Schuster, c1996); or a more benign interplay in individual lives, see Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York : Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1999).[4] This terminology of exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist owes their popularity to John Hick, God has Many Names (London: Macmillian,1980).[5] In recent years, the inclusivist position has been further subdivided into pluralist inclusivist that acknowledges that the other faiths could be true, into the avoidance of a-priori monism of truth by restricting oneself to one’s own texts, and the witnessing one’s own faith without making judgments about others. This essay has been influenced by all of these approaches. For these approaches, respectively, see Schubert M. Ogden, Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1992); Paul J. Griffiths, “Modalizing the Theology of Religions,” in The Journal of Religion 73 (1993): 382-389; Kateryn Tanner, “Respect for Other Religions: A Christian Antidote to Colonialist Discourse” Modern Theology 9:1 (January:1993):1-18.[6] Ruth chapter 1, Zephaniah 3:9, Zechariah 14:9.[7] Babylonian Talmud Avodah Zarah 46a, Megillah 25b.[8] Robert Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not (New York: NYU Press, 1998), p.108.[9] Yehudah Halevi's finding of a common root and common endpoint is reminiscent of the thinking of Nostra Aetate[10] Halevi grants gentiles the ability of gentiles to receive revelation provided a distinction is made between prophets and ordinary revelation, see Robert Eisen, “The Problem of the King's Dream and Non-Jewish Prophecy in Judah Halevi's ‘Kuzari’" JJTP 3,2 (1994): 231-247.[11] The verses that Hirsch used, that have comments of Radak, include: Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:6-9 42:5-7, 55:3-5- 60:3, Psalm 67, Zechariah 9:1, 14:9.[12] Joseph Gikkitila, Gate of Lights, translated with an introduction by Avi Weinstein (San Francisco: HarperCollins, c1994). All quotes are from Gate 5.[13] Israel Jacob Yuval, Shene Goyim be-Vitnekh (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2000).[14] Zevi Yehudah Kook, Judaism and Christianity [Hebrew] (Beit El: 2001).[15] Z. H. Chajes, The Student's Guide through the Talmud (New York : P. Feldheim, c1960).[16] See Tanya, chapter 1; Iggeret haKodesh 25.[17] Yitzhak Nahmani,Sefer Torat Ha-gilgul, Nefesh, Ruah U-neshamah. (Netanyah : Y. Nahmani, 755 [1995]). In this volume Nahmani tries to downplay the dualism by rejecting the theory that gentile souls come from the evil side. Using sources from elsewhere, Nahamni argues that all souls originate in Adam, and even Esau and Ishmael have Divine lights.[18] Likkute Sikhot 19 Kislev 5743 -1982.[19] The Garden of Wisdom, translated D. Levene, (Columbia Univ. Press, 1907).[20] The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations (London, New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 55. World Wide Religious News 2/15/03.[21] Henry Pereira Mendes, "Orthodox or Historical Judaism" The Dawn of Religious Pluralism: Voices from the World's Parliament of Religions, 1893, edited with introductions Richard Hughes Seager (La Salle IL, Open Court, 1993), 328-330, reprinted from Walter R. Houghton ed. Neely's History of the Parliament of Religions (Chicago:1894), 217-8.[22] Tiferet Yisrael, Avot 3:17.[23] Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, translated by Maxwell Luria (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995), 68.[24] Ibid, 77.[25] Ibid, 75.[26] [http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious<references /alexandria2002.htm The First Alexandria Declaration].>
==See Also==
*[[Thoughts_on_NoahidismThoughts on Noahidism]]
==External Links==
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42 Changes - Wikinoah English
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
