Comparison of jewish and christian

Introduction

There has been a strong inclination among bookmans who compare early Judaic texts with early Christian 1s to prosecute in an essentialist reading of the two “religions” that are supposed to be represented by the texts compared: Hebraism, construed as “essentially” a faith of “works” , whereby one earns one ‘s redemption based on one ‘s ain attempts, and Christianity as “essentially” a faith of grace, whereby persons are acquitted at the Godhead judgement entirely on the footing of God ‘s clemency. Although this inclination was most marked during the nineteenth and throughout much of the 20th century, it is still apparent today. Both the duality of works/grace and the essentialism that supports this duality have been shown to hold arisen as the merchandise of a Protestant polemist against Catholicism, a polemist that was later applied to Judaism every bit good.

If sorting the early Christian motion as a Judaic religious order does non imply that it exhibits complete homogeneousness with other Judaic religious orders, it is merely the comparing of these groups that reveals what is typical to each. Following the logic and method of categorization, one could possibly be content with listing and depicting the system of similarities and differences between the usage of the phrase “new covenant” in the Damascus Document and 2 Corinthians.

Introduction

In its early old ages, Judaism taught that God was non merely an almighty God, but besides a forgiving one. The belief in a God that was capable of forgiving humanity for its wickednesss separated Hebraism from the other early spiritual traditions of Palestine. “ The possibility of teshuvah ( Hebrew for “ return ” or “ penitence ” ) , which could take to the reception of forgiveness of God, became the centrepiece of Judaic moral life ” ( McCullough & A ; Worthington, 1999, p. 1144 ) . In add-on to learning that God forgives people because they are penitent for their wickednesss, Judaism stresses that people should forgive penitent wrongdoers every bit good. Forgiving 1s ‘ wrongdoers is tied closely to 1s ‘ belief in Judaism, doing it an action of spiritual responsibility, non morality.

Faith And Forgiveness

Although Christians believe their religion is a continuance of Judaism, they differ significantly on the construct of forgiveness. Whereas Judaism emphasizes that penitence is a status for having Godhead forgiveness, Christians view penitence as one measure on the way toward having rank in God ‘s Kingdom. Through the visual aspect and instructions of Jesus, Christian scriptures have placed more accent on interpersonal ( person-person ) forgiveness than have Judaic Bibles. For Christians, the acknowledgment of their mortality drives them to accomplish ageless life in God ‘s Kingdom. For believing Christians, Jesus taught that ageless life is accessible through two chief commandments: First, “ Love the Lord your God through all your bosom and with all your head ” and 2nd, “ Love your neighbour as yourself ” ( The Holy Bible, 1984, p.880 ) . The intent of these commandments is to animate Christians to go more god-like by seeking out and allowing forgiveness with their fellow adult male or adult female in all state of affairss.

In a survey conducted by Cohen, Siegel & A ; Rozin ( 2003 ) , the writers explored differences in how Judaism and Protestantism judged religionism. In footings of spiritual tenet, Judaism focuses more on spiritual pattern than belief, whereas Christianity focuses every bit on both spiritual pattern and belief. The higher value that Christians ( specifically Protestants ) topographic point on spiritual belief, in relation to Judaism, is of import in footings of possible differences in forgiveness. For illustration, Judaism leaches that people are born with the disposition to execute either good Acts of the Apostless or evil Acts of the Apostless. Since the disposition to execute immorality is built-in, the ability to move as a moral individual is to get the better of this enticement. Christian tenet Teachs that an person ‘s mental province is tantamount to the action itself. If an single commits a wickedness in his or her head ( e.g. , craving after another adult male ‘s married woman ) , so he or she has committed a wickedness that is accountable to

God ( Cohen & A ; Rozin, 2001 ) .

Religious Principles

The essentialist reading which posits Christianity and Judaism as two faiths separated by unreconcilable spiritual “principles” has non wholly disappeared. It is alive and good, for illustration, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary ‘s article, “New Covenant.” The article invokes essentialist impressions of what constitutes Christianity and Judaism:

“As a Christian, Paul has a major job cognizing what to make with the law… In Romans, Paul says Christians are discharged from the jurisprudence ( Rom. 7:6 ) , that Christ is the terminal of the jurisprudence ( 10:4 ) . Yet Paul does non desire to distribute with the jurisprudence ; in fact, he claims to continue it ( 3:31 ) . His other statements, nevertheless, distance him irrevocably from Judaism, for whom the jurisprudence is cardinal and everlastingly adhering. For Paul, Christ is cardinal, and the new compact written by his vitalizing Spirit surpasses all other compacts and is eternal.”

“As a Christian, ” Paul “has a major job cognizing what to make with the law.” Christianity is construed in essentialist footings ; it is a faith of grace, non jurisprudence. Judaism is placed at the opposite pole: “for [ Judaism ] the jurisprudence is cardinal and everlastingly binding.” Judaism is a faith of plants ; it is characterized by legalism. Commenting on the Dead Sea religious order, the writer writes, “The community bore an unmistakable cast of legalism…” The Dead Sea religious order furthermore was characterized by an ethical life that was followed merely as the consequence of external stenosis, non an internal desire to make what is right: “ [ T ] he single duty presupposed in the Manual [ of Discipline ] appears non to ensue from any interior motive, at least non the kind envisioned by Jeremiah in his new compact prophecy… [ because ] they still need warnings to obey…” Jeremiah ‘s “new compact prophecy” is taken as symbolic of an internally motivated ethical pattern, one which the Dead Sea religious order fails to embody.

Christian religion on the other manus, is characterized as one faith whose disciples act harmonizing to an internal motive, and so embody Jeremiah ‘s apprehension of the new compact:

“Paul ‘s precise apprehension of how the new compact manifests itself among the heathens is by no agencies transparent in these poetries [ i.e. , Rom. 2:14-15 ] , but one should observe that his thought however runs analogue to Jeremiah ‘s new compact transition where the promise of a jurisprudence written on the bosom is followed by the promise of a new interior motive to cognize and make the law…”

The Covenant

Juhl Christiansen besides employs the “religions of works”/ “religion of grace” duality, although her usage of this couple is much more reticent. It is clear that as a point of sociological fact, Christianity does exhibit societal boundaries: it is a peculiar faith, with an “inside” and an “outside” , an “us” and “them.” Juhl Christiansen asserts that external boundaries are non endemic to Christianity ; they are imposed “from the exterior, ” as the consequence of the rejection of the Christian message by non-Christians. Christianity is a delimited, and therefore a particularistic faith, but Christianity is non blameworthy for this property: it is the non-Christian who “imposes” boundaries, and therefore specialness, upon what by rights ought to be a cosmopolitan faith.

If Juhl Christiansen reinscribes the familiar building of Judaism as a particularistic faith juxtaposed with Christianity as a universalistic, and hence superior faith, she is however to be commended, in my position, for her sensitiveness to Jewish-Christian dealingss.

Decision

The old essentialist manner of comparing between “Judaism” and “Christianity” did non use in comparings affecting the earliest Christian literature and early Judaic stuff. Rather than sing early Christianity as a “religion” that was separate and distinguishable from Judaism, I have chosen to categorise earliest Christian religion as a Judaic religious order. Harmonizing to this position, earliest Christian religion is a species of Judaism, and non a faith that is to be distinguished from it.

Mentions

Baur, F. C. ( 1866 ) . Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, 2 vols. ( London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1875 ; trans. Of Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben, sein Wirken, Seine Briefe und Seine Lehre. Ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte diethylstilbestrols Urchristenthums ; Leipzig: Fues ‘s Verlag, 1866 )

Christiansen, E. J. ( 1995 ) . The Covenant in Judais and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Makers Leiden, New York.

Lundbom, J. ( no day of the month ) . New Covenant. ABD ( 4 ) 1088-94.

Smith, J.Z. ( 1990 ) . Divine Drudgery: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990 ) .

See for illustration J.Z. Smith, Divine Drudgery: On the Comparison of early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Press, 1990 )

J. Lundbom, ABD 4 ; p. 1091

Ibid