Teologi på andra sidan Hippos stadsmur
(2004) In Svensk exegetisk årsbok 69. p.51-70- Abstract
- This article addresses two main questions both of which are raised by Risto Nurmela’s comparison between Judaism and Christianity, the first being the statement that Christology ”of course” is the dividing line between the two religions. This assertion must be refined in order to be applicable since (1) it gives vent to only one of two perspectives (i.e. it articulates only the Christian position); (2) the term “Messiah” does not comprise what Christian theology says about Jesus of Nazareth; (3) both Judaism and Christianity could be described as incarnational religions; (4) comparisons must take into consideration the future dimension of Christology. (5) One also has to reflect on the relation between high Christology and monotheism, and... (More)
- This article addresses two main questions both of which are raised by Risto Nurmela’s comparison between Judaism and Christianity, the first being the statement that Christology ”of course” is the dividing line between the two religions. This assertion must be refined in order to be applicable since (1) it gives vent to only one of two perspectives (i.e. it articulates only the Christian position); (2) the term “Messiah” does not comprise what Christian theology says about Jesus of Nazareth; (3) both Judaism and Christianity could be described as incarnational religions; (4) comparisons must take into consideration the future dimension of Christology. (5) One also has to reflect on the relation between high Christology and monotheism, and also on (6) the consequences of this distinct emphasis on Christology for the comparison per se.
The other topic which this article discusses is whether and to what extent Augustinian anthropology should dominate the comparison between the two religious systems. It would be flawed to describe Christianity as Augustinianism and Judaism as Pelagianism: (1) a considerable number of Christian theologians solely pay lip-service to Augustine; (2) an ecumenical perspective calls for a modification of this emphasis; (3) those involved in comparisons need to address the question of how the doctrine of peccatum originale is understood by theologians who accept the evolution theory (i.e. that Adam and Eve have not existed as historical persons); (4) finally, comparisons between Jewish and Christian anthropology is an excellent demonstration of the accuracy of the statement that “wie es sich Christelt, so Juedelt es sich.” The article concludes that Christian theologians need to adopt a deutero-Augustinian perspective, i.e. to do theology on the other side of the city wall of Hippo. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/161622
- author
- Svartvik, Jesper LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2004
- type
- Contribution to specialist publication or newspaper
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- New Testament, Christianity, Judaism, anthropoology, Augustine of Hippo, original sin, Jewish-Christian relations, Christology
- categories
- Popular Science
- in
- Svensk exegetisk årsbok
- volume
- 69
- pages
- 51 - 70
- publisher
- Uppsala exegetiska sällskap
- ISSN
- 1100-2298
- language
- Swedish
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Centre for Theology and Religious Studies (015017000)
- id
- 679d2b72-bc7e-4ee5-a95e-c672a00f4c88 (old id 161622)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 16:42:51
- date last changed
- 2018-11-21 20:43:39
@misc{679d2b72-bc7e-4ee5-a95e-c672a00f4c88,
abstract = {{This article addresses two main questions both of which are raised by Risto Nurmela’s comparison between Judaism and Christianity, the first being the statement that Christology ”of course” is the dividing line between the two religions. This assertion must be refined in order to be applicable since (1) it gives vent to only one of two perspectives (i.e. it articulates only the Christian position); (2) the term “Messiah” does not comprise what Christian theology says about Jesus of Nazareth; (3) both Judaism and Christianity could be described as incarnational religions; (4) comparisons must take into consideration the future dimension of Christology. (5) One also has to reflect on the relation between high Christology and monotheism, and also on (6) the consequences of this distinct emphasis on Christology for the comparison per se. <br/><br>
The other topic which this article discusses is whether and to what extent Augustinian anthropology should dominate the comparison between the two religious systems. It would be flawed to describe Christianity as Augustinianism and Judaism as Pelagianism: (1) a considerable number of Christian theologians solely pay lip-service to Augustine; (2) an ecumenical perspective calls for a modification of this emphasis; (3) those involved in comparisons need to address the question of how the doctrine of peccatum originale is understood by theologians who accept the evolution theory (i.e. that Adam and Eve have not existed as historical persons); (4) finally, comparisons between Jewish and Christian anthropology is an excellent demonstration of the accuracy of the statement that “wie es sich Christelt, so Juedelt es sich.” The article concludes that Christian theologians need to adopt a deutero-Augustinian perspective, i.e. to do theology on the other side of the city wall of Hippo.}},
author = {{Svartvik, Jesper}},
issn = {{1100-2298}},
keywords = {{New Testament; Christianity; Judaism; anthropoology; Augustine of Hippo; original sin; Jewish-Christian relations; Christology}},
language = {{swe}},
pages = {{51--70}},
publisher = {{Uppsala exegetiska sällskap}},
series = {{Svensk exegetisk årsbok}},
title = {{Teologi på andra sidan Hippos stadsmur}},
volume = {{69}},
year = {{2004}},
}