Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:22:09.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Sensitivity in Judaism and The Christian Message

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

David Flusser
David Flusser
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Judeo-Christian dialogue — be it conducted in the fashion of ordinary human contact or within the discipline of strict scholarly procedure — suffers often from a disturbing pattern: the two partners not only emphasize the elements and features common to both of them, but find themselves confronted in polarity. This emphasis of polarity may prove convenient for the colloquists. Each can assume a polite vantage ground overlooking the position of the opposite religion, yet feel quite content in the assured knowledge of one's own religion because it now bears none of the qualities which distinguish the polar opposite.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 1968 , pp. 107 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See D. Flusser, Pharisees and Stoa According to Josephus, in Iyun [Jerusalem] 14 (1964), 318–29 [Hebrew].

2 Aboth I. 3.

3 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, ed. Schechter, S. (New York, 1945), 26Google Scholar.

4 JBer. IX. 14b.

5 See Büchler, A., Studies in Sin and Atonement (London, 1928), 122–30Google Scholar.

6 See, e.g., Bacher, W., Die Aggada der Tannaiten, I (Strassburg, 1903), 4 fGoogle Scholar.

7 In the “Two Ways” in the Didache, Test. Dan 5:3, Test. Iss. 5:2, 7:6, cf. Test. Zeb. 5:1. See also Brawn, F. M., Les Testaments des XII Patriarches, Revue Biblique 67 (1960), 531–33Google Scholar.

8 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, 64.

9 Aboth. II. 5

10 Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, 53 (second version).

11 Der Nächste (Berlin, Schocken, 1935), 17Google Scholar. Cohen did not want to decide the philological implications.

12 See now Hans Kosmala, Martin Buber, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), 13–17. I learned from a personal talk with Buber that he also was aware of the passage from Ben Sira.

13 See also Sir. 18:13a, although the author treats the problem from another aspect. To the text see Smend, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin, 1906), 165Google Scholar.

14 See above, note 6.

15 According to Mt. 7:12, also Jesus says about the Golden Rule (in its positive form) that “this is the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.” The love toward God is the greatest and chief command (i.e., principle), and “there is a second like it,” the love toward the neighbor; “the whole Law and the Prophets hang upon these two commands” (Mt. 22:36–40). James (2:8) names the precept of mutual love “the royal law laid down by scripture,” and Paul (Rom. 13:9) says, “You must not commit adultery, you must not kill, you must not steal, you must not covet — these and any other command are summed up in a single word, you must love your neighbor as yourself” (see also Gal. 5:14). In the Jewish “Two Ways” the biblical precept of mutual love is followed by the Golden Rule in its negative form (Didache 1:2). This negative form of the Golden Rule closes also the Apostolic Decree according to the Western text (Acts 15:20, 29). Thus it seems that the Golden Rule was the summary of the Law not only for the Jews but also for pious Gentiles. The Golden Rule in its negative form occurs also in the description of Christian life in Aristides's Apology (154f.) The whole passage is very similar to the Apostolic Decree and, on the other side, to a passage from Pliny's famous epistle (and see also Mt. 19:18–19) about Christians. See further Dihle, A., Die goldene Regel. Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der antiken und frühchristlichen Vulgärethik (Göttingen, 1962)Google Scholar. The negative form dominates in early Christian usage; see ibid., 107.

16 A proof for our assumption, that the Hebrew kamocha in Lev. 19:18 was understood as meaning the Golden Rule in its negative form, can be found in the Targum Jonathan of Lev. 19:34, where the Hebrew kamocha is explained in the same way.

17 The following pages are based upon the important article of Stendahl, K., Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love, Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962), 343–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Stendahl's translation.

19 See Stendahl, op. cit. The whole passage (Rom. 12:8–21) contains motifs known from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

20 Didache 1:2.

21 Test. Dan 5:3; Test. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; cf. Test Zeb. 5:1 and Jub. 36:7f.