{"id":24413,"date":"2018-05-14T18:27:52","date_gmt":"2018-05-14T17:27:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.journals.cambridge.org\/?p=24413"},"modified":"2018-05-14T18:27:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T17:27:52","slug":"eliah-benamozegh-franz-rosenzweig-and-their-blueprint-of-a-jewish-theology-of-christianity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2018\/05\/14\/eliah-benamozegh-franz-rosenzweig-and-their-blueprint-of-a-jewish-theology-of-christianity\/","title":{"rendered":"Eliah Benamozegh, Franz Rosenzweig and their Blueprint of a Jewish Theology of Christianity"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

\"\"Recent developments in the Christian world (especially in the Catholic Church) regarding Christian-Jewish relations\u2014initiated by the papal Nostra Aetate <\/em>declaration of 1965\u2014have led to the questioning of some classical Christian attitudes vis \u00e0 vis \u201cthe Jews.\u201d They have culminated in \u201cthe most important development in Christian teaching on the Jewish people since the second and third centuries\u201d (R. Kendall Soulen): the abandonment of supersessionism. On the Christian side, unsurprisingly, this step has triggered considerable backlashes. These stem from the fear that the theological difficulties accompanying the new Christian non-supersessionism could jeopardize the very raison d\u2019\u00eatre of Christianity. On the Jewish side, the unprecedented Christian overture has elicited increasing efforts to provide a positive theological answer. Most of these efforts, however, are based on a political model of \u201cconflict resolution or diplomatic negotiations\u201d (Jon D. Levenson) rather than on sound theological reasoning and thus bear the stamp of theological light-mindedness. In this context, the pioneering efforts of two Jewish thinkers, Eliahu Benamozegh (1823\u20131900) and Franz Rosenzweig (1886\u20131929), in laying the ground for a Jewish theology of Christianity are relevant again. These two major Jewish attempts at a largely positive reevaluation of Christianity that preceded the present Christian overture might deliver, albeit in a rather rudimentary form, some non-apologetic and authentic tools necessary for a Jewish reassessment of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Even according to Benamozegh and Rosenzweig, whose theological benevolence toward Christianity is unique, however, a theological harmony that would somehow make both sides happy seems a mission impossible. These two thinkers could, nevertheless, help in establishing a modest model of a possible collaboration as well as a dialogue between these two religions, while delimiting honestly the theological limits of such an interreligious endeavor.<\/p>\n

Read Meir Seidler’s “Eliah Benamozegh, Franz Rosenzweig and Their Blueprint of a Jewish Theology of Christianity”<\/a> in Harvard Theological Review for free until June 14, 2018.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recent developments in the Christian world (especially in the Catholic Church) regarding Christian-Jewish relations\u2014initiated by the papal Nostra Aetate declaration of 1965\u2014have led to the questioning of some classical Christian attitudes vis \u00e0 vis \u201cthe Jews.\u201d They have culminated in \u201cthe most important development in Christian teaching on the Jewish people since the second and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":725,"featured_media":24420,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[372],"tags":[1730,4510,4511,1130,3377],"coauthors":[4512],"class_list":["post-24413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-religious-studies-humanities","tag-christianity","tag-eliah-benamozegh","tag-franz-rosenzweig","tag-harvard-theological-review","tag-judaism"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24413","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/725"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24413"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24413\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24420"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24413"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24413"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24413"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=24413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}