Advanced

Teologi på andra sidan Hippos stadsmur

Svartvik, Jesper LU (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:
author
organization
publishing date
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
Svenska exegetiska sällskapet
ISSN
1100-2298
language
Swedish
LU publication?
yes
id
679d2b72-bc7e-4ee5-a95e-c672a00f4c88 (old id 161622)
date added to LUP
2007-07-20 12:12:37
date last changed
2016-04-16 04:46:09
@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},
  keyword      = {New Testament,Christianity,Judaism,anthropoology,Augustine of Hippo,original sin,Jewish-Christian relations,Christology},
  language     = {swe},
  pages        = {51--70},
  publisher    = {Svenska exegetiska sällskapet},
  series       = {Svensk exegetisk årsbok},
  title        = {Teologi på andra sidan Hippos stadsmur},
  volume       = {69},
  year         = {2004},
}