DOCSLIB.ORG

You Shall Walk in His Ways Shalom Rosenberg INQUIRES in JEWISH ETHICS Biography: Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
You Shall Walk in His Ways Shalom Rosenberg INQUIRES in JEWISH ETHICS Biography: Dr You Shall Walk In His Ways Shalom Rosenberg INQUIRES IN JEWISH ETHICS Biography: Dr. Shalom Rosenberg is Professor of Jewish Philosophy at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Abstract: This essay examines “V’halakhtah B’drakhav” (Imitatio Dei) as the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics and the basis of halakhic morality. The principle is a meta- norm—a category by which Jewish legal rules, commands and prohibitions are to be judged—and is superior to the principles of “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” (Lev. 19:18) identified as such by R. Akiva, and to “This is the record of Adam’s line,” (Gen. 5:1) identified as such by Ben Azai. The author discusses these three principles as The Edah Journal metaethical norms and their relationship to halakhah, demonstrating that the command to emulate God’s attrib- utes is analytically tied to the concepts of humanity creat- ed in the image of God (Tselem Elohim), sanctifying God’s name (Qiddush Ha-Shem) and profaning God’s name (Hilul Ha-Shem). Unlike Lev. 19:18, its ethical significance is not utilitarian and points to human perfection. Its appli- cation has reference to gentiles, Jews and scholars. The Edah Journal 2:2 Edah, Inc. © 2002 Tammuz 5762 You Shall Walk In His Ways1 Shalom Rosenberg A. willing to see his action universally applied, such R. Akiva said, “‘You shall love your fellow as your- that anyone could impose a loss on his fellow for self’ (Lev. 19:18)—that is the Torah’s great general the sake of his own benefit. And since it makes no precept.” Ben Azai said, “‘This is the record of sense to incur a loss out of self-interest, one would Adam’s line’ (Gen. 5:1)—that is a greater general likewise refrain from imposing that loss on his fel- precept.”2 low. And so, too, if one were able to benefit one’s fellow.5 Much has been written about the philosophical signifi- cance of this dispute.3 Without doubt, R. Akiva is here This reading no doubt approaches the plain meaning of expressing some sort of universalistic principle. Indeed, R. Akiva’s statement. But what does Ben Azai add to Malbim recognized as much when he identified this the discussion? We can probe his position more deeply statement with the well-known Kantian principle: by referring to the parallel version of his statement in the Sifra, as understood in Rabad’s commentary: This is indicated by use of the letter lamed [as the preposition preceding “fellow” in the verse cited by Ben Azai says, “‘This is record of Adam’s line.— R. Akiva],4 which implies standing in one’s fellow’s When God created [man], He made him in the position, in that one wishes for one’s fellow what likeness of God’—that is a greater general precept.” one wishes for oneself. And the philosophers have Which is to say, the first verse [the one cited by R. already explained that the principal rule, the source Akiva] teaches only [that your fellow should be] “as of ethical science, is the desire that all of one’s yourself”: if one is demeaned, or accursed, or actions be of general applicability; that is, if one robbed, or beaten, his fellow is demeaned or wishes to derive benefit through evil befalling accursed or beaten with him. Accordingly, the sec- another, one must first assess whether he would be ond verse adds “in the likeness of God He made 1 First published in Hebrew in Filosophiyah Yisra’elit, ed. Mosheh Halamish and Asa Kasher (Tel Aviv, 5743 [1982-83]). English translation by Joel Linsider. 2 Gen. Rabbah, ed. Theodor-Albeck (Jerusalem, 5725 [1964-65]), p. 237. 3 See the summary by H. Y. Roth, Religion and Human Values (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 5733 [1972-73]), pp. 95 et seq. 4 Malbim bases his interpretation on the distinction between ohev et [in which a simple direct object follows the verb “love”] and ohev le- [in which the object is preceded by a preposition meaning “to”]. 5 Malbim, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Mitsvot, Sifra Vayiqra 45 (on Lev. 19:18). Cf. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on the Torah, Heb. translation by R. Mordechai Breuer (Jerusalem, 5738 [1977-78]), pp. 318-319). The Edah Journal 2:2 / Tammuz 5762 Rosenberg 2 him.” Whom do you demean or curse [when you (even in its third formulation, by Hillel the Elder, “That demean or curse a person]? The image of the like- which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” ness of God. That is a greater general precept than [Shabbat 31b]) is rooted, in my view, in its transforma- the first.6 tion of the commandment to “love your fellow as your- self” into a “great general precept,” that is, a principle The first, essentially formal, precept simply asserts from which additional commandments and general rules equivalent standing. The second adds material ethical may be derived. demands, by establishing barriers that preclude any compromise of that equivalence. I must honor my To be sure, one can understand this commandment as counterpart not merely because he is like me, but prima- mandating a particular emotion or even as requiring rily because he is created in the image of God.7 actions of a particular sort vis a vis the other. Such an understanding implies the transformation of this com- I must honor my counterpart not merely because he mandment into an added, specific obligation. But the is like me, but primarily because he is created in the true significance of R. Akiva’s and Hillel’s statements image of God. rests on the fact that we have here not a specific com- mandment but a meta-commandment, a principle to be We will not dwell here on the implications and mean- used in deriving new norms. This approach is promi- ings of these two precepts, but only on their significance nent in the thinking of Maimonides, who explicitly as a matter of principle. We have here two examples not emphasizes it in his various writings on the second of norms but of meta-norms; that is, a category of prin- method (ha-derekh ha-sheniyah). In Sefer ha-Mitsvot ciples by which rules, commands, and prohibitions, (second shoresh), for example, in the course of criticizing rather than deeds and conduct, are to be judged. This the method adopted by the author of Halakhot Gedolot, incursion into the realm of meta-ethics, and its relation- he says that ship to halakhah, are the subject of the following discus- sion.8 Those who rely on this idea list among the com- mandments visitation of the sick, comforting the B. bereaved, and burying the dead, in view of the As noted, the great innovation in R. Akiva’s statement aforementioned midrash on Scripture’s statement 6 Peirush ha-Rabad (Jerusalem, 5719 [1958-59]), 89b. 7 According to Malbim, Ben Azai moves to an entirely different ethical principle. One who follows R. Akiva’s precept still “acts in all respects for the sake of self-interest.” It is proper, however, that a person “act in all respects on account of the rules of the higher, inclusive understanding, free of any admixture of self-interest.” Ben Azai builds his precept not on interest but on the claim that all people are as “one person and one corpus.” From this, it follows that one must love the other “because he is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.” 8 See H.Z. Reines, “Yahas ha-yehudim le-nokhrim,” Sura 4 (Jerusalem and New York, 5724 [1963-64]):192-221; Ze’ev Falk, “Nokhri ve-ger toshav be-mishpat ha-ivri,” Mahalkhim 2 (5729 [1968-69]):9-15; David Rokeah, “Le-parashat yahasam shel ha- hakhamim la-goyyim ve-la-gerim,” Mahalkhim 5 (5731 [1970-71]):68-75. See also the important work of Yehezqel Kohen, Ha- yahas el ha-nokhri ba-halakhah u-ve-metsi’ut bitequfat ha-tanna’im (doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University, Shevat 5735 [1975]) and the many bibliographical references there. Many of the articles considered there are labeled “apologetics,” and the present article may be deemed worthy of that disparaging characterization as well. But it seems to me that the term alludes to only one significant and productive distinction: that between, on the one hand, an effort to deal with a conflict between a system and an external principle and, on the other, a similar effort when the confrontation arises between principles indigenous to the system, The Edah Journal 2:2 / Tammuz 5762 Rosenberg 3 (Exod. 18:20) “make known to them the way [in mandments.” To similar effect is his Commentary on which] they are to go and the practices they are to the Mishnah (on Pe’ah 1:1), where he says, “All interper- follow.” They say “the way” refers to acts of kind- sonal commandments are included within the general ness; “they are to go” refers to visiting the sick; “in precept of performing acts of kindness. Examine them which” refers to burying the dead; “and the prac- and you will find them there; as Hillel the Elder tices” refers to the laws; and “they are to follow” responded, when asked by the gentile to teach him the refers to actions beyond what the laws require (Bava Torah while standing on one foot, ‘What is hateful to Qamma 30b). And they believe that each of these you, do not do to your fellow.’”10 acts is a separate commandment, failing to recognize that all of the acts, and others like them, fall within C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A USER's MANUAL Part 1: How Is Halakhah Organized?
    TORAHLEADERSHIP.ORG RABBI ARYEH KLAPPER HALAKHAH: A USER’S MANUAL Part 1: How is Halakhah Organized? I. How is Halakhah Organized? 4 case studies a. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1, and gemara thereupon b. Support of the poor Peiah, Bava Batra, Matnot Aniyyim, Yoreh Deah) c. Conversion ?, Yevamot, Issurei Biah, Yoreh Deah) d. Mourning Moed Qattan, Shoftim, Yoreh Deiah) Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the hour that the kohanim enter to eat their terumah Until the end of the first watch, in the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say: Until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: Until morning. It happened that his sons came from a wedding feast. They said to him: We have not yet recited the Shema. He said to them: If it has not yet morned, you are obligated to recite it. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 2a What is the context of the Mishnah’s opening “From when”? Also, why does it teach about the evening first, rather than about the morning? The context is Scripture saying “when you lie down and when you arise” (Devarim 6:7, 11:9). what the Mishnah intends is: “The time of the Shema of lying-down – when is it?” Alternatively: The context is Creation, as Scripture writes “There was evening and there was morning”. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 (continued) Not only this – rather, everything about which the Sages say until midnight – their mitzvah is until morning. The burning of fats and organs – their mitzvah is until morning. All sacrifices that must be eaten in a day – their mitzvah is until morning.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and Imitatio Christi in 1 John: a Jewish Perspective
    Tyndale Bulletin 69.1 (2018) 111-131 ETHICS AND IMITATIO CHRISTI IN 1 JOHN A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE Mavis M. Leung ([email protected]) Summary This paper focuses on one of the ethical features of 1 John, namely ‘the imitation of Christ’. It argues that this ethical feature is related to the believers’ identity and vocation as the people of God. Just as in the OT Israel is obliged to reflect God’s nature in everyday life, the believers must take on Jesus’ character as their character and follow in his footsteps to surrender one’s own life for the benefits of others. The result of this paper indicates that the weight of the Jewish ethical thoughts in the formation of Johannine ethics is more important than often acknowledged. 1. Introduction The last two decades have seen a surge of scholarly interest in topics surrounding Johannine ethics or ethos. Recent publications are in general more affirmative of the place and importance of the (implicit) ethics in John’s Gospel and Epistles,1 in contrast to some previous 1 E.g. Cornelis Bennema, Mimesis in the Johannine Literature: A Study in Johannine Ethics (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017); Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Reciprocity, Mimesis and Ethics in 1 John’ in Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis, ed. Uta Poplutz and Jörg Frey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016): 257-76; Jörg Frey, ‘Ethical Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature’ in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Graeco-Roman Contexts, ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013): 167-203; Jan G.
    [Show full text]
  • Judaism and Artistic Creativity: Despite Maimonides and Thanks to Him
    MENACHEM KELLNER Judaism and Artistic Creativity: Despite Maimonides and Thanks to Him IN SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND the place of artistic creativity in Judaism, Maimonides hardly appears to be a promising source with which to start. His emphasis on intellectual perfection as the defining characteristic of humanity would not appear to make him a promising candidate for our project. This is all the more the case when we consider that, for him, intellectual perfection involves the apprehension of already established truth, not the creation of new knowledge. Despite this, I suggest that Maimonides can be very helpful in seeking to elaborate a Jewish approach to the value of artistic creativity. Maimonides may have been the first posek to count the imitation of God (imitatio Dei ) as a specific commandment of the Torah. Yea or nay, he certain - ly emphasized its importance. The first text in which Maimonides discusses the imitation of God is his Book of Commandments , positive commandment 8: Walking in God’s ways. By this injunction we are commanded to be like God (praised be He) as far as it is in our power. This injunction is con - tained in His words, And you shall walk in His ways (Deut. 28:9), and also in an earlier verse in His words, [ What does the Lord require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, ] to walk in all His ways? (Deut. 10:2). On this latter verse the Sages comment as follows: “Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is called merciful [ rahum ], so should you be merciful; just as He is called gracious [ hanun ], so should you be gracious; just as he is called righteous [ tsadik ], so should you be righteous; just as He is called saintly MENACHEM KELLNER is Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Jewish Thought at Shalem College Jerusalem and Wolfson Professor Emeritus of Jewish Thought at the University of Haifa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imitation of Paul in the Greco-Roman World
    THE IMITATION OF PAUL IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Adam C. Koontz May 2020 Examining Committee Members: Vasiliki Limberis, Advisory Chair, Department of Religion Jeremy Schipper, Department of Religion Khalid Blankinship, Department of Religion Jane DeRose Evans, Department of Art History ABSTRACT The interpretation of Paul’s command to imitate him in the New Testament has been widely and variously understood. This work uses close attention to the Hellenistic Jewish context of imitation in Paul’s world and the Latin and Greek epigraphic evidence to demonstrate that imitation was a practical strategy to unite the farflung churches of the early Christian movement. It did not establish Paul as a powerful figure over every church but was limited to those churches personally acquainted with Paul that could know how to conduct themselves by observing Paul’s example. ii UXORI CARISSIMAE iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iii CHAPTER 1. INTERPRETING PAULINE IMITATION ...................................................................1 2. IMITATION BEFORE THE PAULINE CORPUS .....................................................34 3. IMITATION IN THE PAULINE
    [Show full text]
  • Fooling the Tax Collector
    Schachter, rosh yeshiva of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan In introducing a new metaphor — that Theological Seminary (RIETS) at Yeshiva citizens of a modern democracy are more University. “It is important to note that today like partners than subjects — into formalized the basis for taxation is totally different from Jewish legal thinking, Schachter has taken what it was in talmudic times.” According to a a first important step in opening up an en- contemporary understanding of Jewish law, we tirely new vista from which to think about ought to ground the obligation to pay taxes not the legitimacy of taxes and the responsibility SHMA.COM in the anachronistic notion of dina d’malchuta of partners to participate in public policy dis- dina; rather, we should invoke the talmudic cussions. In this alternative view, it is not us concept of shutfim or partnership. Schachter versus them, but rather “we the people” who concludes, “All people who live in the same must formulate fair tax rules and just public city, state, and country are considered ‘shut- policies. It follows directly from Schachter’s fim’ with respect to the services provided by new formulation that as Jewish partners in that city, state, and country. The purpose be- this process, we have a unique right and obli- hind the taxes is no longer ‘to enrich the king’ gation to bring to our fellow citizens the best in the slightest.” (Torahweb.org) of Jewish legal and ethical thinking. Fooling the Tax Collector: Why the Rabbis Once Approved DAVID BRODSKY abbi Naftali Tzvi Weisz, the Spinka Luke 3:12, 5:27–30, 7:29, 7:34, 15:1, and 18:9– Rebbe of Boro Park, and the great-great- 14), just as the Mishnah associates them with Rgrandson of R.
    [Show full text]
  • Generous Orthodoxy - Doing Theology in the Spirit
    Generous Orthodoxy - Doing Theology in the Spirit When St Mellitus began back in 2007, a Memorandum of Intent was drawn up outlining the agreement for the new College. It included the following paragraph: “The Bishops and Dean of St Mellitus will ensure that the College provides training that represents a generous Christian orthodoxy and that trains ordinands in such a way that all mainstream traditions of the Church have proper recognition and provision within the training.” That statement reflected a series of conversations that happened at the early stages of the project, and the desire from everyone involved that this new college would try in some measure to break the mould of past theological training. Most of us who had trained at residential colleges in the past had trained in party colleges which did have the benefit of strengthening the identity of the different rich traditions of the church in England but also the disadvantage of often reinforcing unhelpful stereotypes and suspicion of other groups and traditions within the church. I remember discussing how we would describe this new form of association. It was Simon Downham, the vicar of St Paul’s Hammersmith who came up with the idea of calling it a “Generous Orthodoxy”, and so the term was introduced that has become so pivotal to the identity of the College ever since. Of course, Simon was not the first to use the phrase. It was perhaps best known as the title of a book published in 2004 by Brian McLaren, a book which was fairly controversial at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairbairnâ•Žs "Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes"
    Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe Volume 24 Issue 4 Article 4 8-2004 Fairbairn’s "Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes" - Book Review Walter D. Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Eastern European Studies Commons Recommended Citation Ray, Walter D. (2004) "Fairbairn’s "Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes" - Book Review," Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe: Vol. 24 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol24/iss4/4 This Article, Exploration, or Report is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEW “Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes” through Eastern Eyes: An Eastern Reflection on Donald Fairbairn’s Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002; 209 pp., appendices, bibliography, indices.). - reviewed by Walter D. Ray. “Almost... not quite...” That summarizes my reaction, as an Eastern Orthodox, to Donald Fairbairn’s Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes. Fairbairn begins well. He acknowledges that Eastern Orthodoxy is truly different from Western Christianity not only in its external forms but in its “underlying vision of the world, of life, and of Christianity” (2), and that this vision is not necessarily wrong simply because it is different. Before evaluating it, he seeks to understand the Eastern church on its own terms, as it sees itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prophet Jeremiah in the Talmud and Midrash Chronology
    Sun 4 Nov 2007 Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi Congregation Adat Reyim Joint series on Jeremiah with Beth El Hebrew Congregation The Prophet Jeremiah in the Talmud and Midrash Chronology 640-609 BCE: Josiah [Yoshiyahu], King of Judah. Marched against Pharaoh Necho and was killed at Megiddo. Strong religious reforms, restoration of Jewish practices, Temple-centered. 626-585 BCE: Jeremiah’s [Yirmiahu] 41 years of prophecy. Torn between love of Jews and love of Judaism. 609 BCE: Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, King of Judah. 3-month reign, died in exile in Egypt. 609-598 BCE: Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, King of Judah. Died during siege of Jerusalem. Burned scroll of Lamentations. Return of idolatry and corruption. 598 BCE: Jeconiah [Jehoiachin], son of Jehoiakim, King of Judah. Was 18, reigned 3 months, exiled to Babylon. 598-587 BCE: Zedekiah [Tzidkiyahu], son of Josiah, last king of Judah . Was 21 when began reign, exiled to Babylon. 589-586 BCE: Siege and sack of Jerusalem, destruction of Temple and exile to Babylon ========================== Authorship Jeremiah wrote the books of Jeremiah, Kings, and Lamentations (Talmud) Moses received the Torah from God and wrote the Book of Job, Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of Deuteronomy (that is, the account of the death of Moses); Samuel wrote his book, Judges and Ruth; David wrote the Psalms; Jeremiah wrote his book, the Book of Kings and Lamentations; Hezekiah and his council wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes; the men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and the Scroll of Esther; Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles down to himself.
    [Show full text]
  • What Sugyot Should an Educated Jew Know?
    What Sugyot Should An Educated Jew Know? Jon A. Levisohn Updated: May, 2009 What are the Talmudic sugyot (topics or discussions) that every educated Jew ought to know, the most famous or significant Talmudic discussions? Beginning in the fall of 2008, about 25 responses to this question were collected: some formal Top Ten lists, many informal nominations, and some recommendations for further reading. Setting aside the recommendations for further reading, 82 sugyot were mentioned, with (only!) 16 of them duplicates, leaving 66 distinct nominated sugyot. This is hardly a Top Ten list; while twelve sugyot received multiple nominations, the methodology does not generate any confidence in a differentiation between these and the others. And the criteria clearly range widely, with the result that the nominees include both aggadic and halakhic sugyot, and sugyot chosen for their theological and ideological significance, their contemporary practical significance, or their centrality in discussions among commentators. Or in some cases, perhaps simply their idiosyncrasy. Presumably because of the way the question was framed, they are all sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud (although one response did point to texts in Sefer ha-Aggadah). Furthermore, the framing of the question tended to generate sugyot in the sense of specific texts, rather than sugyot in the sense of centrally important rabbinic concepts; in cases of the latter, the cited text is sometimes the locus classicus but sometimes just one of many. Consider, for example, mitzvot aseh she-ha-zeman gerama (time-bound positive mitzvoth, no. 38). The resulting list is quite obviously the product of a committee, via a process of addition without subtraction or prioritization.
    [Show full text]
  • New Contradictions Between the Oral Law and the Written Torah 222
    5/7/2019 222 New Contradictions between the Oral Torah and the Written Torah - iGod.co.il Science and faith main New Contradictions Between The Oral Law And The Written Torah 222 Contradictions in the Oral Law Talmud Mishneh Halacha 1/68 /מדע-אמונה/-101סתירות-מביכות-בין-התורה-שבעל-פה-לתורה/https://igod.co.il 5/7/2019 222 New Contradictions between the Oral Torah and the Written Torah - iGod.co.il You may be surprised to hear this - but the concept of "Oral Law" does not appear anywhere in the Bible! In truth, such a "Oral Law" is not mentioned at all by any of the prophets, kings, or writers in the entire Bible. Nevertheless, the Rabbis believe that Moses was given the Oral Torah at Sinai, which gives them the power, authority and control over the people of Israel. For example, Rabbi Shlomo Ben Eliyahu writes, "All the interpretations we interpret were given to Moses at Sinai." They believe that the Oral Torah is "the words of the living God". Therefore, we should expect that there will be no contradictions between the written Torah and the Oral Torah, if such was truly given by God. But there are indeed thousands of contradictions between the Talmud ("the Oral Law") and the Bible (Torah Nevi'im Ketuvim). According to this, it is not possible that Rabbinic law is from God. The following is a shortened list of 222 contradictions that have been resurrected from the depths of the ocean of Rabbinic literature. (In addition - see a list of very .( embarrassing contradictions between the Talmud and science .
    [Show full text]
  • The Imitation of Christ
    THE IMITATION OF CHRIST By JOHN ASHTON HE PROBLEM I want to tackle in this paper may be put in the following way. What is the point of contemplating or of prayerfully reflecting upon the life and teaching of Christ T as it is portrayed in the gospels? What does the christian hope - or what should he hope - to get out of this exercise? Why cannot he confine himself, as St Paul did, to attempting to assimilate into his own life the central mysteries of the christian message - God's revelation of himself to mankind through the passion, death and resurrection of his Son? St Paul succeeded in finding an answer to the question, What do the passion and resurrection mean to me and to others like me? We are so used to his answer that we tend to underestimate the difficulty of the question. Paul 'interiorized' Christ's passion and death by giving his own life (or recognizing in his own life) what Fr Yarnold has called 'a paschal shape'. By any standards this was an extraordinary intellectual and religious achievement. Why cannot we stop there? Why do we need to go further and enquire about or reflect upon the details of Christ's life ? The question may be put in another way: is it enough to think of Christ as man (as St Paul undoubtedly did), or must we be able to think of him as a man? And perhaps there is a third way of putting it too. Could christianity have dispensed with the synoptic gospels? Would it have been much the poorer, or even the same religion, without them? Some may detect a bultmannian ring in these questions; and they would be right.
    [Show full text]
  • And Eastern Monophysitism
    Athens Journal of History - Volume 1, Issue 4 – Pages 267-288 The Political and Social Conflict between Orthodox Christianity (Constantinople and Rome) and Eastern Monophysitism By Jayoung Che The 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (431) denounced Eutychianism/Monophysitism as a heresy. Rushdoony suggested that the Chalcedonian formula made Western liberty possible because the unity and particularity (or individuality) firmly grounded in the triune God freed man from the oppression of the state. In my opinion, however, even the triune God does not always refer to everybody’s liberty, but could degenerate into an instrument protecting the privileged. The so called universalism exploited by some Byzantine emperors or most senatorial aristocrats refers to the enforcement of the religious dogma; the former preferred Monophysitism for consolidating autocratic imperial power, and the latter the Chalcedonian formula for securing their liberty against the emperors’ despotism. Enforcing whichever kind of religious dogma denotes the degeneration of the Byzantine Society towards an exclusive, privileged society. Contrary to religious exclusivism, there was a type of Christianity which was more universal and open- minded, not only towards heretics but even to the pagans. Introduction As Constantine the Great promulgated the Edict of Milan (313 AD), the Hellenic-Roman traditions and the various sects of Christianity began to co- exist legally. Actually, however, the universalism of Christianity allowed it to open its mind towards the so called pagans
    [Show full text]