NEW: OT291 The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead
Comments
-
Talk about an insensitive title - I shudder to think we may have Jews in the forums. Topic of the course is probably fine but ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well, I really hate to bring this up, but everyone's favorite author (Bart Ehrman) makes precisely that argument, demonstrating .... well, we better not mention that part.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Well, I really hate to bring this up, but everyone's favorite author (Bart Ehrman) makes precisely that argument, demonstrating ...
[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Talk about an insensitive title - I shudder to think we may have Jews in the forums. Topic of the course is probably fine but ...
Given the Gospel message that the old testament points to the new I fail to see why this is any more insensitive than anything else that Christianity claims, of course these claims are foolishness and stumbling blocks in the eyes of non Christians but are you really suggesting that we should not make such claims?
0 -
but are you really suggesting that we should not make such claims?
No, but read closely. Schmemann uses terminology that I like very much - Christians (and Messianic Jews) read the Old Testament through the lens of the cross. Judaism does not read the Tanakh through the lens of the cross so in a very real sense we share a text but not an interpretation. There is no such thing as a "Jewish Trinity" however much the Christian Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament when read through the lens of the cross. To combine "Jewish" and "Trinity" into a single term is (a) to refer to an non-existent concept (b) reflects a total lack of understanding of Judaism (c) is insulting to our Jewish friends (d) is an insult to Christian logic/scholarship ...
Note: I have several good friends who are observant Jews including my first-cousin's wife and children.
Schmemann reference is "For the Life of the World" is my memory serves me.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I have to admit I didn't pay much attention to the wording of the title when I posted. And while I do think the topic is very interesting and worthwhile, I agree that the term "Jewish Trinity" is misleading and meaningless. It should be changed.
0 -
There is no such thing as a "Jewish Trinity" however much the Christian Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament when read through the lens of the cross. To combine "Jewish" and "Trinity" into a single term is (a) to refer to an non-existent concept (b) reflects a total lack of understanding of Judaism (c) is insulting to our Jewish friends (d) is an insult to Christian logic/scholarship ...
You need to be careful not to believe that your particular understanding of the term "Jewish" is universal and that others MUST subscribe to it (which you require by leaving no room for disagreement).
It can be convincingly argued that New Testament writers, including Paul, saw themselves as "Jews" within Judaism preaching the Jewish Messiah and as such the Jewish Trinity. They were not preaching a new religion but intended to show what true/real Judaism is. For them, the "Jewish Trinity" was the culmination of the progress of revelation about God's nature. Maybe the concept of "Jewish Trinity" is non-existent in the framework in which you operate (this is your right after all). However, to claim that disagreeing with your view "reflects a total lack of understanding of Judaism" (whose Judaism?) and "is an insult to Christian logic/scholarship" is rather narrow minded (for lack of a better word) unless you see yourself as determining what Judaism and Christian logic/scholarship are.
Since the time of Jesus, people have disagreed with the Jewish Christian church's understanding of what real /true Judaism is. However, The New Testament presents a clear case that Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah also believed in a "Jewish Trinity" and did not see themselves outside Judaism or against it but as showing its true meaning.
My point is not to start a theological debate but just to point that for a number of Jews and Gentiles, historically, "Jewish Trinity" is not a "non-existent concept" championed by the ignorant.
Could this concept be offensive to some (and even many) Jews? Definitely (and I can see why because of many historical developments) and in the same way many of the claims of the New Testament are. However, let us not confuse being PC with history, logic, or scholarship.
You had a point about the potential offensive nature of the title but your appeal to proper understanding of the (not carefully defined) Judaism (some second temple scholars find “Judaisms” to be more appropriate) and reference to logic and scholarship show a clear overreach.
By trying not to offend one group, you might have insulted another.
Should title of books or courses (reflecting particular doctrines and geared toward a particular group) now be changed in order not to offend another group? I could give a list of titles, concepts, and even posts that I find offensive... but should we go down that road?
This is something Logos will have to address at some point but careful for what you wish for.
0 -
I agree that early Christians saw themselves as Jewish and that there was a period of time in which the title would not have been offensive. However, the split between Christianity and Judaism has a sufficiently long history that one can't assume that a reader would recognize the historical justification without wording in the title to lead one to that perspective. Note: in the original post I did make allowance for the Messianic Jews who would have a very different reaction.
So I stand by my statement, and, feeling sassy, point out that I did not refer to Christianity as a Jewish splinter sect as a way to justify the title.[;)]
Note: there was a time historically when Christianity and Judaism were still sufficiently intertwined to make viewing Christianity as a Jewish sect would have been reasonable. However, many contemporary Christians would take offense at this characterization.
However, let us not confuse being PC with history, logic, or scholarship.
And please do not confuse history, logic and scholarship with political correctness. PC has nothing to do with my reaction; friendships, logic and scholarship do.
rather narrow minded (for lack of a better word) unless you see yourself as determining what Judaism and Christian logic/scholarship are.
You know perfectly well I don't see my personal view as normative. Catholics are far more communal than that. These are the forums so a senior (or master's) thesis on the topic seems inappropriate. Therefore, in compliance with Grice's theory of communication, I assume the common usage of all terms.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I think Alan's point is valid ... the Mormons encapsulate the NT so presumably one could say 'the Mormon New Testament'. And their early leaders were Christians which would make that OK. I'm sure the concept shouldn't offend the Christians?
Actually early Christianity disenfranchised the jews from the OT in-toto. No reason they should be offended by their history re-written.
But I suspect the good Doctor knew exactly what the game was. But Mr Ehrman did demonstrate the jews indeed recognized a trinity ... just not one including an itenerant preacher from Galilee.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I am excited to see this course and approve of its title. [:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ,
I would argue that there was never a time when the concept of the Trinity within Judaism as Jesus understood it (including Jesus being God) was not offensive to many Jews including the Jewish leadership; it was so offensive in the early first century that Jewish rulers wanted to kill Jesus (John 5:18; 10:33, which form an inclusio for the whole section in the Gospel of John describing the growing opposition to Jesus and his doctrines and the beginning of the efforts to eliminate him, see also 19:7). As such, the Gospel and attendant doctrines have always been offensive (the blasphemous kind of “offensive”) to some groups especially within Judaism.
Your response suggests that you would not dispute that there are different (legitimate) ways to look at the question of Trinity and Judaism from Jewish Christians in the first century to Messianic Jews today. I do not dispute the fact this characterization has the potential (to put it mildly) to be offensive. My point is that in some expressions of Judaism, whether ancient or modern, the Trinity is a Jewish doctrine (at least according to their adherents). This is a case that can be made logically and with scholarly rigor.
If “Jewish Trinity” is a legitimate articulation of belief within Judaism in history, should such expressions be censured because of their offensive potential (offensive nature not to be confuse with anti-Semitic statements which are another issue)? If so, where do we stop knowing that Christianity and especially the person of Jesus are also potentially offensive and seen as a perversion of “true” Judaism by some? For many, Jesus the “Jewish Messiah” is as offensive as “Jewish Trinity.” What about what offends Christians in some Jewish works?
As Logos expands to reach more groups that are not historically “best buddies” and whose doctrines are sure to offend others, these kinds of issues are bound to multiply… exponentially. Should Logos become now a doctrinal editor (or censor)? If titles of books or courses are targeted, why not the work themselves and what they represent? Some are offended by the very fact that what they see as heretical books/works are sold by Logos. I believe Logos has decided that offending some of its users is worth doing when reaching a greater audience. While I have my reservations about this strategy, I understand that I will need to get over it if I choose to continue to use Logos as a platform (I already do it with places like Amazon).
0 -
But Mr Ehrman did demonstrate the jews indeed recognized a trinity ... just not one including an itenerant preacher from Galilee.
More convincingly than Who Did Jesus Think He Was? by J. C. O'Neill? Dr. Michael Heiser seems to have a particular interest in the area.[:)]
But my point is that contemporary Judaism does not recognize a Trinity as such and to force/infer the Christian Trinity onto the Jewish community is not appropriate. If one wishes to do so in an historical context, then the title needs to qualify the title so that the average reader reads it as intended.
the Mormons encapsulate the NT so presumably one could say 'the Mormon New Testament'.
Isn't this the distinction I made using Schemann's terminology? But then wouldn't I qualify the interpretation of the "Mormon New Testament" as a Mormon interpretation rather than a Christian interpretation?
Anyway, I've made my point and justified it. I don't expect to convince everyone - but I hope I made some think.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
If “Jewish Trinity” is a legitimate articulation of belief within Judaism in history, should such expressions be censured because of their offensive potential (offensive nature not to be confuse with anti-Semitic statements which are another issue)?
I thought that I made it clear that I had no objection to the topic as a legitimate topic of study - an interesting one, in fact. And given a context that made it clear that a historical rather than contemporary context is meant, the term can be used appropriately. But as the title of a course, i.e. torn from the context it would have in a class lecture, it is as inappropriate as "Papist theology" - "papist" having such a derogatory connotation as to be appropriately used only in historical contexts.
should such expressions be censured because of their offensive potential
No but they should be used with care missing in this instance.
Should Logos become now a doctrinal editor (or censor)? If titles of books or courses are targeted, why not the work themselves and what they represent? Some are offended by the very fact that what they see as heretical books/works are sold by Logos. I believe Logos has decided that offending some of its users is worth reaching a greater audience.
I am merely suggesting that Logos ought to be careful about the title they assign to their own work. To me it seems obvious that a successful company tries to avoid the foot-in-mouth syndrome in building their clientele. To me it is the equivalent of opening a restaurant in a Jewish neighborhood and selling a dish called "Passover Pork" which is actually kosher lamb ... okay that is an over-the-top example but it makes the point.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ, I agree with you ... the title was poorly chosen. But the good doctor knew his target audience, and selling is the game plan.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
But the good doctor knew his target audience, and selling is the game plan.
I'm sold.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0
