07/12/2004: Prof. Dr. Peter Hünermann
I. The main issues
The struggle of the Secretariat for Christian Unity under Cardinal Bea to promulgate a declaration De Judaeis, whose successful climax was the publication of the conciliar document Nostra Aetate, has produced extremely rich fruits. The brief and yet balanced pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council not only had a vast positive resonance and were often referenced by a variety of exegetical and theological publications, but they also opened the way to a lively dialogue between the Church and Judaism.[1] The popes themselves, especially Pope Wojtyla, the Roman dicasteries, the episcopal conferences and also individual bishops have addressed this topic and have promoted a critical revision of ecclesiastical history and a deeper theological reflection. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24th, 2001) is certainly one of the most important of the studies that go in this direction and a paradigmatic example of these developments.
A close reading of the first three paragraphs of article four of Nostra Aetate signals the necessity of correcting a series of propositions that were part of our theological tradition:
The Church of Christ acknowledges that in God's plan of salvation the beginnings of its faith and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. It professes that all Christ's faithful, who as people of faith are daughters and sons of Abraham,[2] are included in the same patriarch's call and that the salvation of the church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God's chosen people from the land of bondage. On this account the church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can it forget that it draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted.[3] The church believes that Christ who is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in himself.[4] […]
As Sacred Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God's moment when it came.[5] Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed its spread.[6] Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.[7] Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder [Soph 3, 9].[8] […]
Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ,[9] neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion. It is true that the church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from Sacred Scripture. […]
Indeed, the Church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be directed. Remembering, then, its common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, it deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time or from any source…[10]
From this passage, we can derive three fundamental dogmatic propositions. 1) the beginning of the faith and of the election of the Church of Christ is found in the patriarchs, in Moses and in the prophets; the exodus prefigures the salvation of the Church. 2) the gentiles who belong to the Church are grafted onto the good olive like a wild shoot. 3) Despite the rejection of the Gospel by many Jews, God’s gifts and Israel’s vocation endure.
At this point, it is necessary to ask whether a mere material correction of the dogmatic treatments of topics such as ecclesiology is sufficient to respect the new conception of the relation between the Church of Christ and the Jewish people. Are there other aspects of dogmatic theology that must be changed or revisited? The question emerges also whether the very methodology of dogmatic theology ought not to be renewed so that the whole truth of this relation may unfold. For example: if the Church and the Jewish people are closely related to each other and the Bible is acknowledged as a common heritage of faith despite the different interpretive traditions, are there no questions that transcend the mere correction of a few propositions that until now were taken for granted? Here, we believe, a number of methodological problems emerge.[11]
This suspicion is confirmed by a more focused reflection on the three points mentioned above. They do not refer to something that from the historical point of view is merely casual or accidental. They are propositions that open a transformed vision of the relation between the Church and the Jewish people. This is a vision that can be engaged only if the theologian relates it to fundamental theological questions. In fact, it presupposes a specific approach that reveals things unknown until then, opening up a series of questions that are not answered easily. In order to give them adequate attention, it is helpful to attempt a brief overview of dogmatic methodology, leaving aside more detailed questions and focusing on fundamental aspects.
II. An intermediate reflection: fundamental aspects of dogmatic methodology
When one considers the multiplicity of dogmatic publications, the wide diversity of the themes, the variety of the approaches, a question at once emerges: what is theology if not a kind of scientific work concerning topics that in some way are related with the faith or with Christianity? But what does “the scientific character of theology” mean? Are there any common formal traits that characterize dogmatic theology?
To deny the existence of these formal traits would reduce theology to a type of cultural science. The unity of theology and its specific character in the family of the different sciences would be lost. Thus, the determination of the formal character of theology is absolutely necessary.
In the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas described this formal character of theology in the following way: theology deals principally with God (principaliter), and with creatures inasmuch as they referentur ad Deum, ut ad principium vel finem ("are referred to God as their beginning or end").[12] The basis of this determination of the formal character of theology is that God manifests Himself in faith as the prime truth (prima veritas), in other words not as one of the multiple categorical truths, or as a truth like any other. God is the truth that opens itself up and lets all truths flow out. Thus, the revelation of God is characterized by this formal structure: God is prima veritas in quantum manifestabilis et manifestativa omnium ("the prime truth insofar as it is able to be manifested and to manifest everything").
The self-communication or disclosure of God Himself as prima veritas and as authentic human salvation takes place primarily through the events of the economy of salvation, which begins with creation and finds its fullness in the event of Christ. In the texts of the Old and the New Testaments these events of the divine economy have found their authentic expressions. Only through this economy, in other words through the objecta materialia fidei, the objectum formale fidei ("material objects of faith, the formal object of faith") – God as prima veritas – is present. As a matter of fact, the objecta materialia fidei ("material objects of faith") can only be believed through this formal perspective, and thus through the light of faith. What is the consequence of this conception of revelation for the fundamental structure of theology?
Thomas sets out this doctrine, and does not develop an argument to prove its principles – which are the articles of faith, but starts instead from these principles to prove other things.[13] What does theology prove? Certainly something more than mere deductions or conclusions derived from principles. Theology consists in a deepened understanding of the faith, in the demonstration of the relations of the various aspects of faith and the inner coherence of faith as a whole, of its material objects. For this reason theology does not merely use the articles of faith, but also all the resources of intelligence and the results of the philosophical and the historical sciences. But sacred doctrine makes use of thus type of authority of the sciences as an “external and probable” argument. It uses instead the authority of canonical Scriptures in a proper sense and arguing ex necessitate ("out of necessity").[14] “Our faith is based on the revelation given to the apostles and to the prophets, who wrote the canonical books.”[15]
Theology emphasizes its formal character by acknowledging, from the methodological point of view, the authority of canonical Scriptures as normative in relation to the other instances of faith. All these instances have an irreplaceable function, but this function is secondary, and, so to speak, auxiliary.
Melchior Cano, on the basis of this Thomistic conception, dealt with the whole list of loci theologici ("grounding sources of theology"). Even for him, the authority of Sacred Scripture is the highest instance. After that comes the authority of the oral traditions concerning Christ and the Apostles. A further instance is the Church, intended as the community of the faithful in its totality, as well as the Councils, the Roman See, the Fathers, the theologians. Finally, the loci alieni (the "extrinsic sources"): the ratio naturalis ("natural law"), philosophy, history.
This doctrine of the loci theologici was further developed by the Second Vatican Council. Thus the testimonies of the faith articulated and received by the Oriental Churches have been acknowledged as an expression of authentic faith. Among the loci alieni, the Church names also contemporary non-Christian culture in its various aspects, as well as the undeniable results of the various modern sciences[16]. In Gaudium et spes, for instance, it is claimed that, through the social sciences, the Church comes to a better understanding of its own message and structure.
Apart from having broadened the range of the loci theologici, the Second Vatican Council has also transformed the use made of them by the Church and by theology.
Melchior Cano claimed that the loci theologici proprii properly speaking represent the principles of faith in the form of propositions. The Council instead, echoing the contemporary theological consensus, teaches that Scripture must be interpreted keeping in mind the insights of history and philology. Only by properly taking these insights into account it is possible to arrive at the intellectus fidei ("faith understanding"), which must be clarified and explained. This intellectus fidei cannot be understood just though the propositions and the letter of Sacred Scripture. The same goes for the other loci theologici. Thus, the doctrine underpinning theological methodology has been deepened in comparison with the conception put forth by Melchior Cano. Such a deepening and change are analogous to the change that Melchior Cano himself had already introduced in comparison with the conception of Thomas Aquinas, without however betraying the spirit of the latter.
Thus the loci theologici represent an operative nexus, structured by faith in its ecclesial historicity. It is the operative core of theological methodology.
Now let us ask: does the new determination of the relation between the Church and the Jewish people lead to a new understanding of the notion of loci theologici?
So as to evaluate the possible changes in the ambit of theological methodology and of theology’s methodological work, I would propose to proceed through two phases, In the first, we shall try to understand whether the Council’s discovery of the relations between Jews and Christians transforms the loci known until now. In the second phase, we shall evaluate a number of dogmatic treatments and the new problems that they raise.
III. Change of the loci theologici through the Council’s discovery of the Jewish-Christian relation
I would like to illustrate the turn that has taken place [in the wake of the Council] by reflecting first of all on the first locus theologicus, which is defined by Melchior Cano as “the authority of Sacred Scripture,” contained in the canonical books. According to Cano, Sacred Scripture consists of the books of the Old and the New Testament. Today, however, the understanding of the Old Testament and of its relation with the New Testament appears partially different.
In the second century AD a number of voices can be heard in the Church, which talk of the death of Israel[17]. This is the sense: because of its rejection of Jesus Christ, the people of Israel has lost its dignity as the chosen people. It is the Church that now represents the people of God. This conception was rapidly received [by the Church as a whole] and it deeply marked the Christian tradition, among Catholics as well as Protestants. In his Discourses on Religion, Friedrich D. Schleiermacher remarks in his romantic language: “for a long time now, Judaism has been a dead religion; those who today continue to bear its color assist mournfully an incorruptible mummy and shed tears upon its death and its sad legacy […]. When its sacred books were completed, God’s dialogue with His people came to an end.”[18] According to this perspective, the Old Testament is the pre-history of the New Testament, but a pre-history that is definitely over, closed, almost petrified.
Of course, even in the very text of the Old Testament, the divine economy of Israel is characterized as pre-history. Even the document Nostra Aetate reaffirms this thesis:
Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the church, this sacred council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham. The church of Christ acknowledges that in God's plan of salvation the beginnings of its faith and election are to be found in the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. It professes that all Christ's faithful, who as people of faith are daughters and sons of Abraham[19], are included in the same patriarch's call and that the salvation of the church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God's chosen people from the land of bondage[20].
There is such a thing, therefore, as a pre-history of Christianity. This pre-history, however, is not simply terminated, dead, petrified. This pre-history is still effective. To echo Hans-Georg Gadamer, this pre-history has a Wirkungsgeschichte ("history of reception ") that is still actual and relevant today. What is the theological basis for such a claim?
In the Letter to the Romans, Paul claims that the irrefutable promise of salvation and redemption is tied to Jesus Christ, both for the Jew and for the pagan.[21] According to Paul, Christ is the Messiah of Israel, and the Gentiles participate [in the promise of salvation] through his mystery[22].
The remission of sins, justification, rebirth through baptism are new facts, which transform the earlier history of Israel into a pre-history. But the justice of God (Rm 1, 16), revealed in Christ and destined to the faithful – to the Jew first, then also the pagan – is a justice ex fide in fidem ["out of faith into faith"].
The first covenant, the path that leads to Jesus Christ – and Paul exalts the great gifts that God granted to Israel on this path – confronts us with a certain ambiguity in relation to the new data of God’s economy: not all, but many in Israel close themselves to the novelty of the Gospel of Jesus. Paul defines this experience – which he himself experiences during the accouncement of the Gospel and during his missionary activity on its behalf – with the term porosis, “hardening”. For Paul, porosis does not indicate merely a personal fault. In the Old and the New Testament porosis encompasses a series of phenomena that go from personal or collective (factual, historical) insensitivity to an attitude of stubborn resistance to the Spirit of God. Israel’s porosis, which Paul observes, possesses – thanks to God’s justice and to His faithfulness – a profound salvific sense: “For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rm 11, 32). In the Letter to the Romans (11, 25), Paul claims that this porosis shall continue “until the full number of the Gentiles comes in,” and thus “all Israel will be saved.” In this perspective, the term porosis used in the Letter to the Romans is not a moral category: it is a historical-theological category, and it manifests a historical-theological perspective.
This Pauline explanation – according to which the Gentiles are grafted onto the good olive tree of Israel and partake of the sap of the root – exerts a double effect upon the pre-history. The latter is the nourishing root that bears the new. This means that the Church is inexorably the Church of the Jews and of the Gentiles. If in Christ there is no longer any division between Jews and Gentiles, the Church is obliged to welcome the Jews who belong to the people of God of today thanks to the pre-history. On the other hand, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Wirkungsgeschichte leads a major proportion of Israel into porosis. Even this porosis, however, shall be an instrument to realize salvation. The manner in which this choice of the majority of Jews constitutes a spiritual itinerary leading to salvation is a mystery known only to God and to His faithfulness.
What are the consequences of this relation compared to the first locus theologicus, the authority of Sacred Scripture? Happily, contemporary exegesis talks of a “two-fold outcome” of the Bible[23]. This expression reflects the historical results of scientific research on the canon [of Scripture], but it also presents a theological implication. The two-fold outcome signals exactly that the pre-history has a double Wirkungsgeschichte. In this sense the Bible exists in a two-fold manner: it exists in a New Testament perspective, and it exists in a perspective that rejects the Christological event affirming however the relation of Israel with God and the idea that the faithfulness of God to His covenant remains the cause of the redemption of Israel. In this sense the Bible, the Old Testament, interpreted in a Jewish perspective, must be accepted by the Christian theologian as expression of a hope that has value for the people beloved [of God]. This acceptance of the Old Testament interpreted from a Jewish perspective includes in itself the profound difference between the Jewish and the Christian tradition. This is because, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament leads to Jesus Christ.
There is an inner tension, even a contradiction within the Christian position. But every relation, even a relation marked by conflicts and by contradiction, certainly presupposes a common point, a shared foundation. The foundation that we have in mind for this relation is the fact that in the death of Jesus on the cross is manifested the very faithfulness of God to his covenant with Israel. It is precisely in the death on the cross that – despite the opposition to the message of the Gospel – is manifested the unconditional love of God.[24] Consequently, it is here that for the Christian vision we find the hermeneutical lynchpin around which the Jewish-Christian relation – so tense and apparently exclusive – can develop. It is only from this hermeneutical starting point that one can interpret that relation adequately; and it is only in this way that one can respect God’s inexhaustible love and His grace as expressed in the death of Jesus.
In the eschatological faith in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, there is a limit, a no – his death. Only if grafted onto this death can the Church hope in the resurrection.[25] This is the paradoxical, in fact, the contradictory experience of the disciples. The Paschal events and the experiences expressed in the first Paschal texts do not lead to a mere plausibility of the faith. Those who believe and who affirm the eschatological truth of Christ are called to accept a radical openness, a theological ignorance, the radical impossibility of complete self-determination, the impossibility of turning history into a straight line. Paul says that baptism grafts the faithful onto the death of Christ. This claim was valid for the first disciples, but also for those who believe thanks to their testimony. It is through the death of Christ that the Gentiles are grafted onto the good olive. It is through impenetrable darkness and the obscurity of the night that the salvation of the only people of God shall become manifest. If the Church that sees of our Medieval cathedrals does not embrace the Synagogue that sees not, the Church shall have no future. The way of faith is a way [to be undertaken] with Jesus Christ and with his words, which becomes actual through death and through life.
Let us now direct our attention to another locus theologicus, which Melchior Cano calls “the authority of the Catholic Church.” Through the rediscovery of the communion with the Jewish people, even this arena, I believe, acquires a different shape. At a time when the idea that the Church had taken the place of Israel, that Israel had been rejected by God and no longer played any role in the history of salvation, was an unchallenged theological claim, the authority of the Catholic Church was something self-determined and inward-looking. The Church was the result of the eschatological Gospel and was founded upon itself. Now, if instead the Catholic Church is essentially the Church of the Jews and of the Gentiles, with the Gentiles essentially grafted onto the root of Israel, the result is that this Church contains in itself something that is contradictory, an irreducible Other. This opposite, this undeniable Other marked by porosis but the bearer of the salvific promises, gives a new shape to the locus theologicus of the authority of the Catholic Church. This authority of the Catholic Church is a relational reality in itself and in this sense it is relative. The relation to Israel as root and as group characterized by porosis makes of this authority an authority that is simultaneously eschatological and definitive, because it bears witness to the salvation destined to the Jews and to the Gentiles. But the Gentiles are warned by Paul that they ought not to grow proud, since, if God has not spared the natural branches, “He will not spare you either.”[26]
A porosis, or a cut, is thus a possibility for Israel, as well as for the wild grafted-in branches. This means that instances of “hardening” are possible even in the history of the Church. In other words, even if official magisterial teaching is exact and tradition is transmitted correctly, it is possible however that the magisterium and the sensum fidelium remain blind before the signs of the times, before historical necessities and unable to give an adequate response to the Spirit that blows. In this sense, the word of the magisterium and of the Church would remain sterile, even if [outwardly] correct.
At the same time, the Spirit of God and His justifying grace can ensure that even from these dead words gush forth penance and spiritual life. “God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones.”[27] This is the eschatological hope. The pronouncements of Pope John Paul II concerning the conduct of the Church in history, antisemitism and the attitude of contempt towards the people of Israel concealed in the life of the Church, are indicative of the acknowledgment of this ambiguity in the authority of the Catholic Church. The words of Mt 16, 18: "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," often repeated in a spirit of blind assurance, can only be confessed with the utmost humility and mindful of God’s merciful grace.
It is only logical that these reflections on these loci theologici are going to have consequences for the shape of dependent loci theologici. In this sense the rediscovery of the relation between Israel and the Church compels us to continue emphasizing the Spirit, and not the letter.
IV. The new use of the loci theologici
The transformation of the loci theologici that we just discussed leads to a new use of these loci.
I would first of all like to illustrate a few problems that concern the dogmatic treatment of God. In the past, as we have seen, traditional dogmatics and the use of the loci theologici was dominated by the concept of a pre-history that was determined, finished, concluded. Thus the Old Testament's assertions about God belonged to this pre-history. The manner in which the Fathers – one should think of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana – already interpret certain “offensive” passages of the Old Testament is indicative of how dogmatic theology has treated of the mystery of God. The model of Platonic critique of the myths enabled theology to reject anthropomorphic claims about God and to highlight the specific character of the message of the Gospel.
It is obvious that philosophical thought possesses a legitimate space in the ambit of dogmatics. The elaboration of the intellectus fidei cannot abandon the use of reason. Without natural reason, theology would be nothing but una sancta rusticitas ("a hooly coarseness"), in the expression of Melchior Cano. On the other hand, if pre-history is an effective pre-history, if Israel is truly the root that bears the Church ex Judaeis et gentibus ("of Jews and Gentiles") in what way God’s own truth shall become manifest even in those verses about God that appear “offensive”?
Contemporary Old Testament exegesis has rediscovered the immense plurality and complexity of the predicates of God in the Old Testament. A simple example: recently, Andreas Michel published a work called God and violence against children in the Old Testament,[28] in which he analyzes a great number of texts that talk of violence against children and then goes on to focus on the texts that talk of God’s violence against children. The problem of how to give an adequate methodological treatment of these texts has yet to be solved. Certainly, however, to ignore these texts as often happens in the context of dogmatic theology is no longer tolerable. The problems raised here are not simply problems of moral theology or ethics. The question is much deeper: whether this way of talking about God might not be something blasphemous for contemporary humanity, rather than a profession of faith in God? Is it possible to deal with these questions without a dialogue with the Jewish interpretation of these texts? Of course this does not mean that the classical loci alieni ought not to be consulted in this context. Rather, the reference to the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament becomes a “semi-proper” instance, a locus theologicus semiproprius, for theology: “semi-proper,” because, being part of its root, it belongs to the Church and to its “patrimony,” but only “semi-proper,” because alienated from Christ.
Another example of the new use of the loci theologici could also be found in the treatment of ecclesiology. Earlier on, we recalled what is the proper understanding of the locus theologicus of the authority of the Catholic Church. As Church ex Judaeis et gentibus, which is generated by Israel and which is saved and united through the cross, through the Lord’s resurrection and through the effusion of the Spirit, this people of God is a Messianic people in the proper and authentic sense of the word. It is interesting that the Second Vatican Council has made us of the term “Messianic people” in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, art. 9:
Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood (1 Cor 11, 25), calling together a people made up of Jew and gentile, making them one, not according to the flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God (1 Pt 1, 23), not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3, 5ff.), are finally established as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God” (1 Pt 2, 9ff.). That messianic people has Christ for its head, "Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification"(Rm 4,25).[29]
From this Messianic character one can derive perspectives for the elaboration of a new ecclesiology. The Church is a Messianic people that follows Christ, and it is thus called to participate in His Messianic mission. The reconciliation, the forgiveness of sins, the arrival of the kingdom are proclaimed messianically, and the people of God must test these truths in the different historical situations. It is the Messianic mission, described in Isaiah 61: 1-4. The testing of the Gospel manifests itself in a manner of life. Thus, the pneumatic and charismatic character of the Church must be determined in a new manner. And here the relation of the Church with the world and with the historical situation of humanity is given an enormous weight.
Until now, theoretical ecclesiology was principally interested in showing that the Church is established by Jesus Christ and that it receives its structures through this constitution. If the stress in ecclesiology is put instead on the messianic people that follows Jesus Christ, the testing of the Church and the testing of its structures are founded primarily upon the evolution of the messianic dynamics that characterizes this people. Even if this messianic dynamic is always realized in fragmentary forms, it always remains the fundamental trait. Thus theology, and in particular ecclesiology, finds itself confronted with methodological provocations. Elaborating the messianic aspect that sees Jesus Christ as the Messiah that has realized his messianic role in the form of a servant, we witness the emergence of criteria and forms of life for the Church of today. All the organizational and structural moments of the Church find their significance in the act of serving and in expressing the messianic character of the community of the faithful.
As a last example, I would like to touch briefly upon the dogmatic treatment of the theological virtues, and especially of faith. It is faith that characterizes the righteous ones of the Old Testament, as well as the faithful ones of the New. There is a change in the material objects of the faith in the divine economy, but the faith itself does not change. Both the Fathers of the Church and the Medieval theologians would firmly assert this truth. Today further questions are raised: how can one speak of faith, considering that the Old Testament speaks of the covenant of Noah, Melchizedek and the other patriarchs before talking of the covenant with the people after the exile? What type of “figures” can the faith in God assume? These are questions that touch upon the dialogue with the other religions. Can they be solved without taking into consideration the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament?
I hope that these illustrative reflections have demonstrated how the discovery of the Jewish-Christian relation stimulates new methodological reflections in Christian theology and especially in dogmatic theology.
Notes
[1] Cf. La relazione sulla situazione del dialogo cristiano-ebraico, in ThQ 180 (2000), pp. 81-160.
[2] Cf. Gal 3, 7.
[3] Cf. Rom 11, 17-24.
[4] Cf. Eph 2, 14-16.
[5] Cf. Lk 19, 42.
[6] Cf. Rom 11, 28.
[7] Cf. Rom 11, 28ff.; also Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church, n. 16 (AAS 57 [1965] 20, 4140).
[8] Cf. Is 66, 23; Ps 66 [65], 4; Rom 11, 11-32.
[9] Cf. Jn 19, 6.
[10] Nostra aetate, art. 4, 4198.
[11] Cf. Peter Hünemann, Thomas Söding (eds.), Methodische Erneuerung der Theologie. Konsequenzen der wiederentdeckten jüdisch-christlichen Gemeinsamkeiten, Quaestiones Disputatae 200, Freiburg in Breigau, 2003
[12] STh I q.1 a.3, ad 1.
[13] STh I q.1 a.8.
[14] STh I q. 1 a. 8, ad 2.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Cf. Gaudium et spes, 44.
[17] Cf. Melitos of Sardi, Homilia in Passionem Christi, Z. 762-764; also Walter Groß, Der doppelte Ausgang der Bibel Israels und die doppelte Leseweise des christlichen Alten Testaments, in W. Groß (ed.), Das Judentum- eine bleibende Herausforderung, Mainz 2001, 9-25, 14
[18] Cf. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern, Kritische Gesamtausgabe I-XII, ed. by G. Meckenstock, Berlin-New York 1995, p. 282, p.284ff. [quoted from the Italian translation Sulla religione: discorsi a quegli intellettuali che la disprezzano, ed. by Salvatore Spera, Brescia: Queriniana, 1989]
[19] Cf. Gal 3, 7.
[20] Nostra aetate, art. 4, 4198.
[21] Cf. Rm 1, 16ff.
[22] Cf. Rm 1, 3ff; 9, 5; 15, 8; also Michael Theobald, Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT 136), Tübingen 2001, pp. 278-323; pp. 367-395; Willhelm Thüsing, Die neutestamentliche Theologien und Jesus Christus. Grundlegung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments III: Einzigkeit Gottes und Jesus-Christus-Ereignis (mit Studien zum Verhältnis von Juden und Christen), ed. by Thomas Söding, Münster 1999.
[23] Cf. Walter Groß, Der doppelte Ausgang der Bibel Israels, op. cit.
[24] Cf. Helmut Merklein, Der Sühnetod Jesu nach dem Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments, in M. Merklein, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus II (WUNT 105) Tübingen 1998, pp. 31-59, in part also pp. 35-37.
[25] Cf. Rm 6, 5ff.
