Abstract
This essay brings the Jewishness of Jesus of Nazareth into conversation with Christian conceptions of the incarnation. Thereby, not only linguistic, biblical-scientific and dogmatic aspects are considered, but above all Jewish perspectives, especially theses of Michael Wyschogrod.
1 At the Beginning of the End of Anti-Jewish Christian Theologies
âIch bin schockiert über das Maà an Antijudaismus, das ich [â¦] beobachte.â1 â This statement by Michael Wyschogrod from 1995, with reference to the discussions following the declaration âZur Erneuerung des Verhältnisses von Christen und Judenâ by 13 theology professors of Bonn in response to the âRheinischen Synodalbeschlussâ in 1980, is unfortunately still topical and not just limited to specific occasions. Even if there has been an increased effort to avoid explicit anti-Judaism in recent decades, Christian theologies are still permeated by implicit anti-Judaism of various kinds.
The simple fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, a Jew from head to toe, from the cradle to the grave, is clearly recognizable from all four Gospels â and yet for almost two millennia it was concealed, suppressed, whitewashed by a- and anti-Jewish views of the person of Jesus. As a result, for centuries the anti-Judaism cultivated in Christian theology, liturgy and catechetics provided the breeding ground for National Socialist ideas, especially for their effectiveness.
This breeding ground is described by Michael Wyschogrod with the following words:
while Nazism of course was not a Christian teaching as such â indeed it was largely an anti-Christian teaching â nevertheless, the Holocaust could probably not have occurred if not for the two thousand years of preparation that took place in the âteaching of contempt.â The phrase was coined by Jules Isaac, a French Jewish scholar who used this expression to refer to the age old teaching in so many Christian sources of contempt for Judaism.2
In the following, due to the particularly topical nature of the problem outlined in view of the growing right-wing populist tendencies in politics, society and the church, as well as in view of the increasing acts of violence motivated by anti-Semitism, an attempt will be made to approach it by taking into account Jewish premises and perspectives, based on one of the most central areas of Christian faith tradition, the incarnation, whereby I will be inspired above all by Michael Wyschogrodâs theses, supplemented by a few other authors.3 This topic is âundoubtedly the most difficult in the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity. [â¦] It is a topic usually postponed in Jewish/Christian dialogue again and again, and very often never dealt withâ,4 according to Wyschogrod.
2 In the Beginning Was not the Prologue
Christian ideas about the incarnation of God in the human form of Jesus of Nazareth are predominantly based on one part of a single Bible verse: the beginning of John 1:14 (â
Moreover, the fact that the prologue to the Gospel of John itself appears incoherent, and as consisting of several sections joined together, has already been pointed out many times. What is striking is precisely the leap in content which has been preserved exactly before John 1:14 and which has not been erased by later redactors. The reflection on all who are âborn of Godâ (â
In the broad spectrum of views on the origin and function of the prologue of John in relation to the rest of the Gospel of the same name, Michael Theobald came to plausible conclusions in his 1988 habilitation thesis âDie Fleischwerdung des Logosâ which is still up to date. Therein, he concludes:
Die Ãberzeugung, der Joh-Prolog sei nicht die Keimzelle, aus der heraus die Christologie des Corpus Evangelii sich entwickelt habe, hat zu ihrem Ahnherrn A. v. Harnack, der sie den Tübingern im Gefolge F. C. Baurs abgerungen hat. Der richtige Kern seiner ansonsten überholten These, der Prolog sei eine Einführung für hellenistische Leser in ein ihnen fremdes Buch, ist aufbewahrt in der heute weitverbreiteten Ãberzeugung, der Prolog gehöre nicht an den Anfang der joh. Ãberlieferungsgeschichte, sondern an deren Ende.5
According to Theobald, the prologue was âzur Bewältigung einer christologischen Krise geschaffenâ, in which it was a matter of âin einem für seine Gemeinde existenzbedrohenden Konflikt ein klärendes, wegweisendes Wort zu sprechenâ. However, the author of the prologue had âden konkreten âSitz im Lebenâ seines Textes verborgen und seine Leseanweisung für das Ev mit der Aura eines heiligen Textes umgeben.â6
If one takes into account the fact that the oldest surviving written record of Johnâs prologue is Papyrus 66 (Papyrus Bodmer II), it can be assumed that Johnâs prologue was written at a much later date than is generally supposed. Papyrus 66 was asserted to date âaus der Zeit um 200â7 shortly after its discovery. In 1968, Gordon D. Fee still claimed the same, or at best considered an earlier date possible.8 Commentators still rely on these assessments today.9
Brent Nongbri, on the other hand, concluded in 2014 from his meticulous and cogent research: â[â¦] the combined weight of these considerations points to a date for the production of P. Bodmer II in the early or middle part of the fourth century.â10 It is therefore not only possible that the prologue to John, and in particular the seemingly separately inserted verse 14 from it, was written in the late second century CE and placed before the Gospel of John, but that this happened not until the period around the Council of Nicaea.11
It should also be borne in mind that in later centuries âdieser Text in der Ãberlieferungs- und Auslegungsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments auch selbständig wahrgenommen und verwendet wurde. Wie wenig anderen Texten aus den Evangelien erkannte man dem Prolog eine besondere Bedeutung zuâ, according to Wolfgang Augustyn.
Schon in der Spätantike berührte man mit diesem Evangelium den Kopf von Kranken bei Fieber â auch dafür war Augustinus Zeuge â, und noch im 12. Jahrhundert wurde es mancherorts am Krankenbett gelesen. Man führte den Text des Prologs (oder dessen Ãberschrift) als Amulett mit sich.12
This text was therefore regarded as having a special magical meaning and â which is crucially â as being independent of the rest of the Gospel of John, as if it were sufficient in itself.
3 Neither at nor in the Beginning: on the Problematic Nature of the Concept and Idea of an âIncarnationâ
3.1 Linguistic Aspects
The very term âincarnationâ reveals its emergence at a time that was preceded by at least two processes of linguistic, cultural, ideological and religious transformation. It was derived from the Latin word âcaroâ, a word that neither Jesus nor his disciples as possible first bearers of traditions nor the first authors and editors of written records would have known.
Linguistically, the term âinsarxationâ would be somewhat closer to the circumstances at the time of Jesus, although here too it would be highly questionable whether the term
Although in the Septuagint the term
In any case, the fact is that the term
Here, the term
Mt 19:5f alludes to Gen 2:24, but there is no reinterpretation of the term
The latter is supported by the fact that he calls on his disciples to watch and pray (v. 41, in contrast to v. 38: watch), that in v. 37 it says: âhe [â¦] began to be sorrowful and very heavyâ, and that in v. 39 he prays: âO my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.â According to the narrative of Matthewâs Gospel, the temptation would have been that Jesus did not want to go the way that he had claimed shortly before, for example in 26:24, that âthe Son of man goeth as it is writtenâ. But what exactly would the Matthean Jesus in v. 41 mean by the term
As open as the meaning of the term
3.2 Biblical Aspects
3.2.1 âGottbildlichkeitâ13 of Man
âWhen I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?â (Ps 8:3f). In view of the overwhelming size and sheer endless expanse of the night sky, this verse describes the feeling of insignificance of its author, insignificance in relation to the universe, but above all in relation to its creator. Nevertheless, the experience of being accepted by God also resonates, of Godâs remembrance of man as such and probably of the author of the text in particular. However, the sixfold use of the personal pronoun âyouâ and its declensions is central: They emphasize the unique greatness of God, tangible in his creation.
In many respects, an astonishing continuation follows: âYou have made him only a little less than God, you have crowned him with splendor and glory. You have made him ruler over the works of your hands; you have put everything under his feetâ14 (Ps 8:5f). First, this is astonishing because of the linguistic mixture of direct address to God and communication to the reader in the first half-sentence, which, paraphrasing the biblical text, would make more sense as a pure direct address to God: âFor thou hast made him a little lower than youâ. Astonishing is also the change in content compared to the previous verse: Man, who experiences himself as insignificant, is suddenly described as âonly a little less than Godâ. The mediation of these different perspectives takes place again through the âyouâ, because God remains the active one, previously as the creator of the heavens, here as the one who crowns man âwith splendor and gloryâ and establishes him as ârulerâ. If being only slightly less than God could lead people to hubris, Ps 8 emphasizes that it was only God who gave people this closeness (in the sense of similarity) to God. In this psalm, man thus sees himself as the ruler over the work of Godâs âhandsâ, but immediately after listing the animals to be ruled, he breaks out again in exuberant praise of the Creator: âO LORD our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth!â (Ps 8:9)
An even closer relationship between God and man is outlined in Gen 1:26, when it says: âAnd God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likenessâ. As in Ps 8, this is immediately followed by the wish that people should âhave dominionâ over the other living beings on earth. In v. 27, the previously not clearly monotheistic statement is specified and put in the singular (âhis (â¦) imageâ instead of âour imageâ): âSo God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he himâ. However, this singular, the image of God, has the external appearance of a plural: âmale and female created he them.â This being-created
Chronological readers of the book of Genesis can place this âafterâ the so-called âfall of manâ. If one were to argue here that the phrase âin the day God created manâ refers to a âprimal stateâ before the âfall of manâ, then Genesis 5:2f speaks against such a view: âMale and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Sethâ. The similarity to God becomes clear precisely through the parallelism of procreation and naming. Moreover, the so-called âfall of manâ in the story of Gen 3:1â24 only has the consequences described in verses 14â19. On the other hand, nowhere is there any mention of the multiple falls of man described from Gen 4:3 onwards being the consequence of the event in the Garden of Eden described in Gen 3. If one does not read the book of Genesis or the entire Old Testament chronologically, but keeps in mind the different times in which the texts were written, Genesis 3:1â24 can be seen as an attempt to explain the existence of the hardships of life (death, tribulation, enmity between parts of the animal and human world) within a mythological framework, but not as a demonstration of a hereditary basic depravity of humanity.
If we consider the redemption of (hereditary) sinful humanity through the violent death of a god-man/man-god as a necessary moving force, as the actual goal of the incarnation of the second divine person, then this very purpose stands, or rather: falls, through the view of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis outlined here.
3.2.2 âDepravityâ of Man as a âBeing of Fleshâ?
In the legendary story of Gen 6:1â4, God reacts to the fact that âthe sons of Godâ took âdaughters of menâ as wives with the words: âMy spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.â (6:3) Here, the term âfleshâ can be interpreted as having a negative connotation. However, this term does not have a negative image at all in many other places in the Old Testament, for example in Gen 17:13: âHe that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh (
The term âfleshâ appears in Psalm 16 as a synonym for the mortal nature of human beings, combined with the praying personâs confidence that this mortal nature will also be safe with God posthumously, because the praying person has âthe LORD always before meâ (v. 8): âTherefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.â (v. 9f)
In Ps 63, it is also the entirety of man in his lifetime that is stretched out towards God. God is as necessary for survival as water is for the soul (
3.2.3 No Prediction or Expectation of an Incarnation of God
As much as the authors and/or editors of the canonical Gospels endeavored to demonstrate the necessity of more or less significant details from the accounts of Jesusâ life by means of quotations and references to text passages from the Old Testament, in the sense of the fulfillment of Old Testament âpropheciesâ in and through the person of Jesus, it is astonishing that not even a single passage in the Old Testament could be found that could at least have been adapted to indicate that God would appear in human form.16 This is a crucial point in Wyschogrodâs argument. In contrast to the fact that âwährend des ganzen Mittelalters [â¦] die Judenâ conflicted âder hohen Christologie aus rationalen Gründenâ, Wyschogrod argues,
daà wir Gott nicht auf Grund unserer Vernunftwahrheiten vorschreiben können, was er tun kann und was nicht. [â¦] Wenn Juden die Inkarnation und die Trinität nicht anerkennen, dann nicht deshalb, weil sie rationaler denken als ihre christlichen Nachbarn, sondern weil ihre Offenbarungsurkunden diese Lehren nicht enthalten.17
The term âImmanuelâ, âGod with usâ in Mt 1:23 could be interpreted as referring to an incarnation, but this reference to an Old Testament âprophecyâ was linked to such a crude corruption of Isa 7:1418 that it should actually be the talk of the opposite of a âfulfillmentâ. Moreover, the name âImmanuelâ is not associated with Jesus anywhere else in the New Testament.
The other quotations from or allusions to Old Testament texts serve to present Jesus as the âGovernorâ, as the âshepherdâ (Mt 2:6; 26:31), as the âsonâ called out of Egypt (2:15), as âmy beloved Sonâ (3:17), as a âgreat lightâ (4:16), as the one who âtook our infirmities, and bare our sicknessesâ (8:17), as the one who made the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise and the poor hear the gospel (11:5), as âmy servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleasedâ (12:18), as âKingâ of âthe daughter of Sionâ (21:5), but all these designations fall short of an interpretation of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God inspired and continued by the prologue to the Gospel of John.
4 At the End of the Beginning: âthink âotherwiseââ19
The decisive factor for present and future Christian theologies is, on the one hand, the consideration of their possible toxicity, i.e. their potentially life-threatening or -extinguishing effects, and, on the other hand, the simple question to be answered according to all the sources available so far for the Judaism of his time: Would Jesus of Nazareth, as a Jew of the years around 0 to around 30 CE, have thought of himself in this way?
In my opinion, both questions are often not sufficiently considered âwo die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen christlicher Aufnahmeâ of Jewish âKritik an der Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes (â¦) in der katholischen Theologie (â¦) bedacht werdenâ.20 When, for example, Hans Hermann Henrix talks about the âbleibende Bedeutungâ of the Council of Chalcedonâs understanding of Christ, âwenn christliche Theologie auf die jüdische Kritik an der Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes einzugehen versuchtâ,21 all those interpretative approaches to the person of Jesus of Nazareth that arose pre- and post-Chalcedonian, or in any case a- or anti-Chalcedonian, are (at least for the most part) left out. The (also verbal) recognition that Christian theologies in all centuries, even after the largely enforcement of the Chalcedonian approach, are always to be considered in the plural, can be a further helpful element for the development of non-anti-Jewish Christian interpretations of the person of Jesus.
According to Magnus Striet, the âWirkungsgeschichteâ of this person includes the fact âdass sich die Geister schon früh nach seinem Tod an ihm schieden. (â¦) Wer sich seiner Person im christlich-jüdischen Gespräch reflexiv vergewissert, darf diese Wirkungsgeschichte nicht unterschlagenâ â namely that part of the history of his impact that led to âGewalt gegen das jüdische Volkâ âin einer sich immer weiter steigernden, an Grausamkeit nicht zu überbietenden Weiseâ.22 For Striet, this âtheologische Antijudaismusâ was âdie historische Kehrseite einer bestimmten, satisfaktionstheoretisch konzipierten Soteriologieâ. As a countermeasure, Striet proposes âsich zurückzubegeben zum historischen Jesus und zugleich das neuzeitliche Freiheitsdenken zum normativen Grund theologischer Re
As much as Strietâs endeavors represent a remarkable step in the further development of Christology, there are at the same time argumentative inconsistencies. It is only possible to give an outline of these here. On the one hand, Striet uses the term âhistorical Jesusâ within his train of thought as something to be grasped; on the other hand, he states:
Einen Zugang zum historischen Jesus gibt es nur über Quellen, die bereits hochgradig theologisch interessiert sind. Ob sich in der historischen Rekonstruktionsarbeit wirklich der historische Jesus zeigt oder nicht, kann somit immer nur unter Vorbehalt angenommen werden.24
In my opinion, it would be helpful here to take the literary figures of memory of the historical Jesus in the various Gospels, who each have different characteristics and who have been updated over the centuries, as the starting point for further considerations, in all their diversity and with all the necessary differentiation in the reflection.
On the other hand, the soteriology conceived in terms of satisfaction theory, which Striet would like to set aside with good reason and just as good arguments, is not to be located as the fundamental evil of the anti-Judaism of traditional Christologies, but rather the accusation of the murder of God against âtheâ Jews. However, Striet comes to the conclusion:
Ich glaube nicht, dass an dieser Stelle theologisch noch viel weiter zu kommen ist. Will man intellektuell redlich bleiben, so ist diese Dramatik innerhalb des einen Gottesvolkes von Juden und Christen nur noch auszuhalten und die eigene Interpretation Jesu als jeweils möglich zu riskieren. Menschen mit jüdischem Bekenntnis werden das Messias- beziehungsweise Christusbekenntnis nicht annehmen, und ebenso werden christlich glaubende Menschen daran festhalten, dass der Jude Jesus in einem einzigartigen Verhältnis zu Gott selbst gehört, ja mehr noch: Er nicht nur Gottes Willen geoffenbart hat, sondern die Selbstoffenbarung Gottes war.25
However, it is precisely this confusion between the confession of Jesus as a Messiah (in whatever form) and Jesus as God that occurs in many so-called Christological drafts. One conceptual inconsistency is not taken into account thereby: according to the wording, âChristologyâ should deal with the Messiahship, but not with the divinity of Jesus. This alone would offer a great deal of scope for connecting with Jewish approaches, such as those of Wyschogrod.26
âDie einfachste Lösungâ of the problem of the âantijüdischen Antijudaismusâ, which âin seinen bösartigeren Formen [â¦] eine Dämonisierung der Juden beinhalten kannâ, would be according to Michael Wyschogrod, âdie hohe Christologie aufzugeben und durch eine gemilderte Christologie zu ersetzen, die Jesus als einen ganz besonderen Menschen anerkennt, durch den Gottes Geist zur Menschheit redet, der aber nicht qualitativ von seinen prophetischen Vorläufern unterschieden istâ, because:
Diejenigen, die sich zu einer hohen Christologie bekennen [â¦], müssen die Möglichkeit anerkennen, daà diese Lehre der Geringschätzung Nahrung gibt. Vertreter einer hohen Christologie müssen deshalb besondere Anstrengungen unternehmen, das jüdische Volk nicht zu dämonisieren â es sei denn, ihr Glaube erfordert ein von Gott verworfenes Israel. Dann sollten sie allerdings nicht betonen, daà Jesus Jude war.27
Alon Goshen-Gottstein put it in similar terms: âDie frühe jüdisch-christliche Christologie hätte die Grenze, Jesus als inkarnierten Gott anzuerkennen, niemals überschritten. Dieses Bekenntnis [â¦] verrät eine fundamental antijüdische Position. In letzter Konsequenz leugnet es Jesu Identität als Jude.â28
However, the decisive question for developers of future non-anti-Jewish Christian theologies should not only be whether Jesus, as a Jew, may have thought of himself as the exclusive âSon of Godâ (i.e. not within the Jewish understanding of this term). The following statement by Goshen-Gottstein is far more important to consider and should not be disregarded in any deliberations: âDie Inkarnation besagt, dass Jesus Gott ist. Diese Lehre war der Grund für den Vorwurf des Gottesmordes, der über die Jahrhunderte hin gegen die Juden erhoben wurde. [â¦] Wäre die Inkarnationslehre nicht formuliert worden, wäre viel Leid vermieden worden [â¦].â29
The development of non-anti-Jewish Christian theologies, especially in the area of soteriology, is therefore not a task to be carried out in the abstract, but one that must be done exclusively en face: En face of Jews of all pasts, the respective present and all futures, en face of all Jewish victims of Christian incarnation theologies and en face of a Jesus of Nazareth, who in all probability lived, thought and worked under completely different mental conditions than those attributed to him in the course of the following centuries.
Biography
Born 1980, currently a doctoral student at the University of Vienna, dissertation in the field of Fundamental Theology, on the topic âA theology of the Holy Saturday with special consideration of Jewish perspectivesâ; 2015â2020 studies in Catholic theology, previously completed degrees in composition, concert piano and music theory, doctorate in musicology, teaching at the University of Vienna, etc.
Bibliography
Aland, Kurt: Papyrus Bodmer II. Ein erster Bericht, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 82 (3/1957), pp. 161â184.
Augustyn, Wolfgang: Inkarnationschristologie in den Bildkünsten des Mittelalters. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des Johannesprologs, in: Irmtraud Fischer (ed.): Der Streit um die Schrift (= Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, ed. by Irmtraud Fischer et. al., Vol. 31). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2018, pp. 245â264.
Collins, John J.: Papyrus Bodmer II, in: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20 (3/1958), pp. 281â289.
Fee, Gordon D.: Papyrus Bodmer II (ð66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics, in: Bodmer Papyri, Scribal Culture, and Textual Transmission. Collected Works on New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. by Eldon Jay Epp (= New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, ed. by Bart D. Ehrman/Eldon J. Epp, Vol. 63), Leiden: Brill 2021, pp. 1â143.
Fredriksen, Paula: From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press 22000.
Fredriksen, Paula: The Birth of Christianity and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism, in:, Paula Fredriksen/Adele Reinhartz (eds.): Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism. Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville (KY): Westminster John Knox Press 2002, pp. 8â30.
Goshen-Gottstein, Alon: Das Judentum und die Inkarnationstheologie, in: Freiburger Rundbrief, N. F. 12 (4/2005), pp. 242â253.
Henrix, Hans Hermann: II. Inkarnation: Tiefster Glaubensunterschied und stärkstes Bindeglied, in: Edward Kessler/Hans Hermann Henrix (eds.): Gottes Gegenwart in Israel und die Inkarnation. Ein christlich-jüdischer Dialog, in: Freiburger Rundbrief 15 (1/2008), pp. 16â25.
Kobel, Esther: Evangelium nach Johannes, 2017, https://bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/47922/ (Date of last Access: 24.10.2024).
Levine, Amy-Jill: The Misunderstood Jew. The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San Francisco: HarperOne 2006.
Lowe, Walter: The Intensification of Time: Michael Wyschogrod and the Task of Christian Theology, in: Modern Theology 22 (4/2006), pp. 693â699.
Meyer, Barbara U.: Jesus the Jew in Christian Memory. Theological and Philosophical Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.
Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute: Gottebenbildlichkeit (AT), 2017, https://bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/19892/ (Date of last Access: 24.10.2024).
Nongbri, Brent: The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II, in: Museum Helveticum. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für klassische Altertumswissenschaft 71 (1/2014), pp. 1â35.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford: Faith and Fratricide. The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Eugene (OR): Wipf and Stock 1997.
Rutishauser, Christian M.: Christlichen Glauben denken. Im Dialog mit der jüdischen Tradition (= Forum Christen und Juden, ed. by Erhard Blum et al., Vol. 15). Zürich: LIT Verlag 2016.
Striet, Magnus: Christliche Theologie im Angesicht des Judeseins Jesu, in: Walter Homolka/Magnus Striet (eds.): Christologie auf dem Prüfstand. Jesus der Jude â Christus der Erlöser. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 2019, pp. 71â140.
Theobald, Michael: Die Fleischwerdung des Logos. Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (= Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, ed. by Joachim Gnilka, Neue Folge, Vol. 20). Münster: Aschendorff 1988.
Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (= WUNT, ed. by Jörg Frey, Vol. 267). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010.
Wohlmuth, Josef: An der Schwelle zum Heiligtum. Christliche Theologie im Gespräch mit jüdischem Denken. Paderborn/München/Wien: Ferdinand Schöningh 2007.
Wohlmuth, Josef: Der jüdische Jesus und die Christologie des Konzils von Chalkedon, in: Christian Danz/Kathy Ehrensperger/Walter Homolka (eds.): Christologie zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2020, pp. 319â332.
Wyschogrod, Michael: Christologie ohne Antijudaismus?, in: Kirche und Israel 7 (1/1992), pp. 6â9.
Wyschogrod, Michael: Resurrection, in: Pro ecclesia 1 (1/1992), pp. 104â112.
Wyschogrod, Michael: Incarnation, in: Pro ecclesia 2 (2/1993), pp. 208â215.
Wyschogrod, Michael: Inkarnation aus jüdischer Sicht, in: Evangelische Theologie 55 (1/1995), pp. 13â28.
Wyschogrod, Inkarnation aus jüdischer Sicht, p. 13.
Wyschogrod, Resurrection, p. 104 et seq.
Elsewhere, with not necessarily limited space, other positions relevant to the topic could be discussed in detail, such as Amy-Jill Levineâs (e. g. The Misunderstood Jew. The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus), Paula Fredriksenâs (e. g. From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ; The Birth of Christianity and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism), Barbara U. Meyerâs (e. g. Jesus the Jew in Christian Memory. Theological and Philosophical Explorations) and many others.
Wyschogrod, Incarnation, p. 208.
Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos, p. 489.
Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos, p. 493.
Aland, Papyrus Bodmer II, p. 163, similarly Collins, Papyrus Bodmer II, p. 281.
Fee, Papyrus Bodmer II (ð66), p. 3.
See for example Kobel, Evangelium nach Johannes.
Nongbri, The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri, p. 35.
This possibility is consistent with Theobaldâs assessment that the Gospel of John had âkeinen Autorenschutzâ: âEs war nicht unantastbar, sondern wurde fortgeschrieben. Man las es in den johanneischen Gemeinden, empfing Orientierung aus ihm, stritt wohl auch über seine Deutung und trug kleinere oder gröÃere Ergänzungen nach, bis das Buch schlieÃlich die Letztgestalt fand, in der es die Kirche eroberte.â (Theobald, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, p. 4).
Augustyn, Inkarnationschristologie in den Bildkünsten des Mittelalters, p. 246 et seq.
Cf. Neumann-Gorsolke, Gottebenbildlichkeit (AT), who argues in favor of the term âGottbildlichkeitâ or âBild-Gottes-Seinâ of man instead of âGottebenbildlichkeitâ, when she writes: âOhnehin ist die Formulierung âGottebenbildlichkeitâ aus dem Blickwinkel des Alten Testaments problematisch, da der Wortteil âebenâ der LXX-Ãbersetzung entspringt, während der hebräische Text von der âGottbildlichkeitâ bzw. dem âBild-Gottes-Seinâ des Menschen spricht.â
This is my translation of the text of the Einheitsübersetzung, whereas the Kingâs James Version translates âangelsâ instead of âGodâ, which can be found in some sources. In the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, however, the word â
The description of the fatal consequence of killing a human being in Gen 9:6 is also justified by this: âfor in the image of God made he manâ.
For the sake of the brevity of this study, only passages from the Gospel of Matthew will be used below as examples.
Wyschogrod, Christologie ohne Antijudaismus?, p. 8.
The differences between Isa 7,14 and Mt 1,23 are well known. Apart from the incorrect or restrictive translation of
â[â¦] I wish to suggest that one important task for Christian systematic theology is to think âotherwiseââ, âin a âmore Jewishâ mannerâ (Lowe, The Intensification of Time, p. 694 et seq.).
Henrix, II. Inkarnation: Tiefster Glaubensunterschied und stärkstes Bindeglied, p. 18.
Henrix, II. Inkarnation: Tiefster Glaubensunterschied und stärkstes Bindeglied, p. 19.
Striet, Christliche Theologie im Angesicht des Judeseins Jesu, p. 72.
Striet, Christliche Theologie im Angesicht des Judeseins Jesu, p. 74.
Striet, Christliche Theologie im Angesicht des Judeseins Jesu, p. 94.
Striet, Christliche Theologie im Angesicht des Judeseins Jesu, p. 137 et seq.
Rosemary Ruether points out that Christology âwas always the other side of anti-Judaismâ. However, unlike Wyschogrod, she sees the confession of the Messiah as âthe most fundamental affirmation of Christian faithâ, on which âeverything else in Christian theology is builtâ (Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, p. 246).
Wyschogrod, Christologie ohne Antijudaismus?, p. 9. In contrast, Josef Wohlmuth thinks: âDie âhohe Christologieâ muss nicht notwendigerweise antijüdisch verstanden werdenâ (Wohlmuth, An der Schwelle zum Heiligtum, p. 136 et seq.). Wohlmuth argues for âeine an der Kenosis orientierte Christologie, die mit Chalkedon durchaus nicht in Widerspruch stehtâ (Wohlmuth, An der Schwelle zum Heiligtum, p. 134), which focuses more on the âunmixedâ than on the âundividedâ. The âUnvermischbarkeit des Göttlichen und Menschlichen in Jesus von Nazareth, die im asynchytÅs festgehalten wirdâ, owes itself âin der chalkedonischen Christologie dem Judentumâ (Wohlmuth, Der jüdische Jesus, p. 331). This thesis, developed in contrast to Daniel Boyarin, would have to be discussed in more detail elsewhere.
Goshen-Gottstein, Das Judentum und die Inkarnationstheologie, p. 252. Christian Rutishauser raised the following objection: âGoshen-Gottstein geht in seiner Interpretation, die Inkarnationstheologie leugne die Identität Jesu als Jude, sicherlich zu weit, denn die Betonung seines Menschseins spricht ja nicht gegen sein Judesein, sondern nimmt dieses in sich auf.â (Rutishauser, Christlichen Glauben denken, p. 132). This argument misses Goshen-Gottsteinâs point insofar as, from a Jewish perspective, it is not the humanity of Jesus, believed to be the incarnated Son of God, but the attribution of divinity and his worship that is to be rejected.
Goshen-Gottstein, Das Judentum und die Inkarnationstheologie, p. 252.
