 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Jewish views on religious pluralism" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(December 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | Theneutrality of this article isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Judaism |
|---|
 |
Religious pluralism is a set of religious world views that hold that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in other religions. As such, religious pluralism goes beyondreligious tolerance, which is the condition of peaceful existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.
Within the Jewish community there lies a common history, a shared language of prayer, a shared Bible and a shared set ofrabbinic literature, thus allowing for Jews of significantly different world views to share some common values and goals.
Traditionally, Jews believe that God chose the Jewish people to be in aunique covenant with God, described by theTorah itself, with particular obligations and responsibilities elucidated in theOral Torah. Sometimes this choice is seen as charging the Jewish people with a specific mission: to be alight unto the nations, practiceTikkun olam and to exemplify thecovenant with God as described in theTorah. This view, however, did not preclude a belief thatGod has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God; each nation with its own unique relationship with God.
Biblical references, as well asrabbinic literature, support this view:Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh"(Numbers 27:16), and theTanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifiesprophets outside the community of Israel (e.g.,Baalam). Based on these statements, some rabbis theorized that, in the words ofNathanel ben Fayyumi, aYemenite Jewish theologian of the 12th century, "God permitted to every people something he forbade to others...[and] God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language."(Levine, 1907/1966) TheMishnah states that, "Humanity was produced from one man, Adam, to show God's greatness. When a man mints a coin in a press, each coin is identical. But when the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, creates people in the form of Adam not one is similar to any other" (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). The Mishnah further states that anyone who kills or saves a single human life, Jewish or otherwise, has killed or saved an entire world. TheTosefta, a supplement to the Mishnah, states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in theworld to come" (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1; Sanhedrin 105a; alsoMaimonides,Mishneh Torah,Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4). TheMidrash adds: "Why does the Holy One, blessed be He, love the righteous? Because righteousness is not due to inheritance or family connections... If a man wants to become a Kohen or a Levite, he cannot. Why? Because his father was neither a Kohen nor a Levite. However, if someone wants to become righteous, even if he is a gentile, he can, because righteousness is not inherited" (Numbers Rabbah 8:2).
A traditional Jewish view is that rather than being obligated to obey all613 mitzvot, the other nations of Earth need adhere only to a common list of commandments under seven categories that God required of the children ofNoah known as theNoahide laws.
According to theTalmud, the sevenNoahide laws are;
Any person who lives according to these laws is known as "righteous among thegentiles".Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquiredknowledge ofGod and act in accordance with theNoahide laws. In the 2nd century a sage in theTosefta declared "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come." (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13)
Prophets of the Bible, while they repeatedly denounced the evils of the idolatrous nations (in addition to their denouncing the Jews' sins), they never call the nations to account for their idolatrousbeliefs (i.e. worshiping multiple deities), but only for their evilactions (such as human sacrifice, murder, and miscarriages of justice).[citation needed].
The Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Peah, states:
"כתיב ומשפט ורב צדקה לא יענה אין הקב"ה משהא מתן שכרן של עושה מצות בגוי"
"It is written, "Justice and abundant righteousness he does not withhold". [from here we see] God does not hold back from a non-Jew who does mitzvot.[1][2]
Maimonides, one ofJudaism's most important theologians andlegal experts, explained in detail whyJesus was wrong to create Christianity and whyMuhammad was wrong to createIslam; he laments the pains Jews have suffered in persecution from followers of these new faiths as they attempted to supplant Judaism (in the case of Christianity, calledSupersessionism). However, Maimonides then goes on to say that both faiths can be considered a positive part of God's plan to redeem the world.
The above paragraph was often censored from many printed versions where Christian censorship was felt.[citation needed]
Conservative,Reform,Reconstructionist, and a fewModern Orthodox rabbis engage ininterfaith religious dialogue, while most Orthodox rabbis do not.[citation needed]
Rabbi LordImmanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of theUnited Synagogue ofGreat Britain, describes a commonly held Jewish view on this issue:[citation needed]
"Yes, I do believe in the Chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people - and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual - is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs ofProvidence. Only, some fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe theGreeks were chosen for their unique contributions toart andphilosophy, theRomans for their pioneering services inlaw andgovernment, theBritish for bringingparliamentary rule into the world, and theAmericans for pilotingdemocracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers ofreligion andmorality; that was and is their national purpose."
The German-Jewish philosopherMoses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) taught that "According to the basic principles of my religion I am not to seek to convert anyone not born into our laws....We believe that the other nations of the Earth are directed by God to observe only thelaw of nature and thereligion of the Patriarchs...I fancy that whosoever leads men to virtue in this life cannot be damned in the next."[3][vague]
According to theJewish Encyclopedia article onGentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah,[dubious –discuss][vague] RabbiJacob Emden (1697–1776) claimed:
... the original intention of Jesus, and especially ofPaul, was to convert only the Gentiles to theseven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow theMosaic law – which explains the apparent contradictions in theNew Testament regarding thelaws of Moses and theSabbath.
In practice, the predominant position of Modern Orthodoxy on this issue is based on the position of RabbiJoseph Soloveitchik in an essay entitledConfrontation. He held that Judaism and Christianity are "two faith communities (which are) intrinsically antithetic". In his view "the language of faith of a particular community is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community. Hence the confrontation should occur not at a theological, but at a mundane human level... the great encounter between man and God is a holy, personal and private affair, incomprehensible to the outsider..." As such, he ruled that theological dialogue between Judaism and Christianity was not possible.
However, Soloveitchik advocated closer ties between the Jewish and Christian communities. He held that communication between Jews and Christians was not merely permissible, but "desirable and even essential" on non-theological issues such as war and peace, the war on poverty, the struggle for people to gain freedom, issues of morality and civil rights, and to work together against the perceived threat of secularism.
As a result of his ruling, Orthodox Jewish groups did not operate in interfaith discussions between theRoman Catholic Church and Jews aboutVatican II, a strictly theological endeavour. However, theRabbinical Council of America (RCA), with Soloveitchik's approval, then engaged in a number of interfaith dialogues with both Catholic and Protestant Christian groups.
Soloveitchik understood his ruling as advising against purely theological interfaith dialogue, but as allowing theological dialogue as part of a greater context.Bernard Rosensweig (former President of the RCA) writes "The RCA remained loyal to the guidelines which the Rav [Soloveitch] had set down [concerning interfaith dialogue] and distinguished between theological discussions and ethical-secular concerns, which have universal validity. Every program involving either Catholic or Protestant churches in which we participated was carefully scrutinized.... Every topic which had possible theological nuances or implications was vetoed, and only when the Rav pronounced it to be satisfactory did we proceed to the dialogue."
The basis for Soloveitchik's ruling was not narrowly legal, but sociological and historical. He described the traditional Jewish–Christian relationship as one of "the few and weak vis-à-vis the many and the strong", one in which the Christian community historically denied the right of the Jewish community to believe and live in their own way. His response was written in the light of past Jewish-Christian religious disputations, which traditionally had been forced upon the Jewish community. Those had as their express goal the conversion of Jews to Christianity. As recently as the 1960s many traditional Jews still looked upon all interfaith dialogue with suspicion, fearing that conversion may be an ulterior motive. This was a reasonable belief, given that many Catholics and most Protestants at the time in fact held this position. Reflecting this stance, Rabbi Soloveitchik asked the Christian community to respect "the right of the community of the few to live, create and worship in its own way, in freedom and with dignity."
Many traditional rabbis agree; they hold that while cooperation with the Christian community is of importance, theological dialogue is unnecessary, or even misguided. RabbiEliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism." (Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, Ed. F.E. Talmage, Ktav, 1975, p. 291.)
In later years Solovetichik's qualified permission was interpreted more and more restrictively. (Tradition:A Journal of Orthodox Thought, Vol. 6, 1964) Today many Orthodox rabbis use Soloveitchik's letter to justify having no discussion or joint efforts with Christians.
In contrast, some Modern Orthodox rabbis such asEugene Korn andDavid Hartman hold that in some cases, the primary issue inConfrontation is no longer valid; some Christian groups no longer attempt to use interfaith dialogue to convert Jews to Christianity. They believe that the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has reached a point where Jews can trust Christian groups to respect them as equals. Further, in most nations it is not possible for Jews to be forced or pressured to convert, and many major Christian groups no longer teach that the Jews who refuse to convert aredamned tohell.
In non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism most rabbis hold that Jews have nothing to fear from engaging in theological dialogue, and may have much to gain. Some hold that in practice Soloveitchik's distinctions are not viable, for any group that has sustained discussion and participation on moral issues will implicitly involve theological discourse. Thus, since informal implicit theological dialogue will occur, one might as well admit it and publicly work on formal theological dialogue.
On December 3, 2015, theCenter for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC) spearheaded a petition of orthodox rabbis from around the world calling for increased partnership between Jews and Christians.[4][5][6][7][8][9]The unprecedentedOrthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity, entitled"To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians", was initially signed by over 25 prominent Orthodox rabbis in Israel, United States and Europe[9] and now has over 60 signatories.[10]
On August 31, 2017, representatives of theConference of European Rabbis, theRabbinical Council of America, and the Commission of theChief Rabbinate of Israel issued and presented theHoly See with a statement entitledBetween Jerusalem and Rome. The document pays particular tribute to the Second Vatican Council's DeclarationNostra Aetate, whose fourth chapter represents theMagna Charta of the Holy See's dialogue with the Jewish world. The StatementBetween Jerusalem and Rome does not hide the theological differences that exist between the two faith traditions while all the same it expresses a firm resolve to collaborate more closely, now and in the future.[11][12]
Conservative RabbiRobert Gordis wrote an essay on "Ground Rules for a Christian Jewish Dialogue"; in all Jewish denominations, one form or another of these rules eventually became more or less accepted by parties engaging in Jewish-Christian theological dialogue.
Robert Gordis held that "a rational dialogue conducted on the basis of knowledge and mutual respect between the two components of the religio-ethical tradition of the Western world can prove a blessing to our age." His proposed ground rules for fair discussion are:
Gordis calls on Jews to "see in Christian doctrine an effort to apprehend the nature of the divine that is worthy of respect and understanding" and that "the dogmas of the Christian church have expressed this vision of God in terms that have proved meaningful to Christian believers through the centuries." He calls on Jews to understand with tolerance and respect the historical and religious context which led Christians to develop the concepts of theVirgin Birth, theIncarnation,the Passion, and theResurrection, even if Jews themselves do not accept these ideas as correct. Similarly, Gordis calls on Christians to understand with tolerance and respect that Jews do not accept these beliefs, since they are in contradiction to the Jewish understanding of theunity of God. (Source: "The Root and the Branch", Chapter 4, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962)
Recently, over 120 rabbis have signed theDabru Emet ("Speak the Truth"), a document concerning the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. While affirming that there are substantial theological differences between the two religions, the purpose of Dabru Emet is to point out common ground. It is not an official document of any of the Jewish denominations per se, but it is representative of what many Jews feel. Dabru Emet sparked acontroversy in segments of the Jewish community. Many Jews disagree with parts of it for a variety of reasons.
Many Muslim and Jewish groups and individuals have together createdprojects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs, most of which have as one of their goals overcomingreligious prejudice.
The viewpoint ofConservative Judaism is summarized inEmet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism. This official statement holds that
A small number of modern Jewish theologians, such asYehezkel Kaufman andRabbi Joseph H. Hertz, have suggested that perhaps only the Israelites were forbidden to worship idols, but perhaps such worship was permissible for members of other religions. (Yehezkel Kaufman, "The Religion of Israel", Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960; J. H. Hertz, "Pentateuch and Haftorahs" Soncino Press, 1960, p. 759). Most Jewish theologians disagree, saying that the original meaning of the text was to condemn idolatry in total. However, a growing number of Jewish theologians question whetherHindus andBuddhists today should be considered idolaters in the Biblical sense of the term. Their reasons are that modern day Buddhists, Hindus and others (a) do not literally worship "sticks and stones", as the idolaters in the Tanakh were described doing. They are well aware that icons they worship are only symbols of a deeper level of reality (though the same can be said of modern-daypagans), (b) they do not practice child sacrifice, (c) they are of high moral character, and (d) they are not anti-Jewish. Some Jews argue that God has a relationship with all gentile monotheists (or perceived monotheists), including Hindus, who in the past may have been (mis)interpreted as having a polytheist faith (see alsoHindu views on monotheism), as well as with members of other religions such asBuddhism.
The article onRelationships between Jewish religious movements describes how the different Jewish denominations view each other and interact with each other.
