Anyone can say the Shema in the sense that they can speak the words, Jehan, that's not exactly the point. It's that the recitation implies a vision of the divine and the relationship of the Jews to our God that is unique to our tradition, and in that sense, it's entirely fair to say that Christians "can't have" it any more than they "can" recite the Shahada and still call themselves Christians.
The earliest use of the term "Judeo-Christian" in the historical sense dates to 1829 in the missionary journal of Joseph Wolff, and before that as "Judeo Christian" in a letter from Alexander M'Caul dated October 17, 1821. The former appears in discussions of theories of the emergence of Christianity, and both are used with a different sense from the one common today. "Judeo-Christian" here referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.
The term "Jewish-Christian" had been used in this sense as early as 1785 in Richard Watson's essay "The Teaching and Witness of the Holy Spirit", and "Jewish Christian" (as an adjective) as early as 1644 in William Rathband's A Briefe Narration of Some Church Courses. "Jewish–Christian" is used in 1841 to mean a combination of Jewish and Christian beliefs, and by 1877 to mean a common Jewish–Christian culture, used in the phrase "the Jewish–Christian character of…traditions".
Early German use of the term judenchristlich ("Jewish-Christian"), in a decidedly negative sense, can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche's argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.
The term "Judeo–Christian" did not gain popularity, however, until after The Holocaust in Europe. Reacting against the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany, European and American commentators sought to redefine Judaism as integral to the history of The West. The term has since been used as part of American civil religion since the 1940s to refer to standards of religious ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments or Great Commandment.
At this early stage there were two distinct groups of disciples. The Nasoraeans, or Messianists, were the original followers, who believed that Jesus was a political Messiah who would lead the Jews to freedom. He was still alive, and would in due course reappear to fulfil his promises. (King Arthur later inspired identical beliefs in Britain, and many people were still expecting him six centuries after his death.) They most emphatically did not believe that Jesus was a god in any sense of the word - this would have been contrary to all Jewish religious teaching. The other group, who came to be called Christians, were followers of Paul as much as of Jesus. Within a few years of the crucifixion, this Paul, who loathed the Messianists, had undergone a sudden conversion, which suggests that his original hatred of Jesus was based upon some deep fascination that he found unacceptable. Paul created a new version of Messianism that was far more strange and mystical than that of the Nasoraeans. Paul’s Jesus was the son of God, who had been sent to earth to save men from the consequences of Adam’s sin.
« Older Ms. Horowitz’s new mutualism is based on a simple ... | The Hidden Life Of the Cell (5... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt