D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français

Reflections on the Twentieth Anniversary of Nostra Aetate: Jewish-Christian dialogue challenges theology
Carmine Di Sante

Although it is almost twenty years since its publication on October 28, 1965, Nostra Aetate No. 4, dedicated to Jewish-Christian dialogue, has not yet been accepted at its deepest and most challenging level. This is not only the case within the ecclesial community, whose practices and terminology arc still permeated by a certain ambivalence and traces of anti-Jewish prejudice;(1) it is true also for the different branches of theological research, that is to say, biblical studies, Christology, ecclesiology and dogmatics. The two recently published works of F. Mussner and C. Thoma (2) constitute the first successful and praiseworthy attempts to offer a comprehensive "project for a Christian theology of Judaism",(3) making the transition from an attitude of hostility towards the Jewish people to one of respect and esteem:
"At the time of the Fathers of the Church Tractatus adversus Judaeos began to appear and their anti-Jewish spirit •has continued to have an effect up to the present day; now, in accord with far-reaching changes and renewal within the Church, the opportune moment has certainly come to write a Tractatus pro Judaeis." (4)
For the last two thousand years theological research has been too deeply marked by this adversus for it to he easily and painlessly transformed into the pro of respect and brotherly accord. Together with some others,(5) the two books cited above represent a sign of courage and hope which should be imitated and carried forward.

In order to measure the depths of this progress and conversion, theological research is called upon to answer some questions which are being asked by the Jewish Christian dialogue called for and initiated by Nostra Aetate(6)

A Turning-Point In History
Nostra Aerate was fully intended to be a turning-point in history, not only rhetorically but in the deepest meaning of the word. It indicates both a turning off from the road followed until its promulgation and the opening up of a new one.

There is an official document of the highest authority published by the Holy Sees Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism entitled Guidelines and Suggestions for the Implementation of the Conciliar Declaration Rostra Aerate no. 4", bearing the signature of Cardinal J. Willebrands, which speaks of Nostra Aetate as a turning-point; it begins:
"The declaration of Nostra Aetate, issued by the Second Vatican Council... on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions... marks an important milestone(6a) in the history of Jewish-Christian relations. "(7)

In a conference entitled A Turning-Point in the Relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews?, held in Turin on April 19, 1964, some months before the publication of the conciliar text, the lay philosopher, Norberto Bobbio, pre-empted Cardinal Willebrands by defining the text that was soon to become Nostra Aetate as a historic turning-point. The speaker asked himself whether the expression should be taken metaphorically or literally. His answer was that one is dealing with a real turning-point as important as the Reformation or the French Revolution. It is important to re-read some parts of this provocative and paradoxical text, formulated by a man not easily given to the glamor of oratorical statements:
We are gathered here today, urged on by the common conviction that we ate witnessing a turning-point in history. Often in the past we have spoken of historical turning-points, but we can easily deceive ourselves where these are concerned. About this turning-point, however, I believe we are right. We are face to face with realities so new and revolutionary, so decisive and with such far-reaching implications, that it is impossible for us to continue on our present path." (8)

Bobbio backs up what he says by a comparison between this event and those of the Reformation and the French Revolution:
"Let us pause for a moment to compare our situation with that of the two great turning-points in modern history: the Reformation and the French Revolution. Are we sure that the reasons that led to these two events could not have been avoided? As historians we must accept this as a given fact. But if for a moment we put ourselves in the place of those who lived during these two upheavals we could imagine other alternatives open to us and that the turning-point, in the way in which it happened, could have come about in some other way. If attempts at a peaceful solution had gained the upper hand -... if there had been an internal reform . . It is well-known, however, that history is not made up of Ifs'. There again, we are not here dealing with history as such. What we must do is to try to understand our times in the light of past experiences, confronting what actually happened with what might have been, except that in the case under discussion there is this big difference —there are no Ifs'. Today we are convinced that if we continue as we have been going, ignoring the turning-point, we are heading for disaster. For the first time in history our path is Mocked — we are unable to go ahead. We may compare our situation to that of a mountaineer who, realizing that he is heading straight for a crevasse, is forced to turn back. For us also there lies the danger of an abyss if we keep going as we are. Never more than today has humankind understood the need to turn around and take a completely new road." (9)

The road from which we must turn away is the "human madness"(10) of a civilized and Christian Europe which found its most destructive and diabolical expression in the Nazi anti-Jewish extermination policy:
"The European generation to which I belong has had the bitter privilege of peering into what abyss the human race might plunge when its passions go beyond the bounds of reason. What happened is a dear premonition of what is to come if there is no resolute decision to change the course of history." (11)


If Nostra Aerate no. 4 was intended to be a turning-point, theological research must ask itself if this has indeed been the case. It must identify the character and quality of this turning-point; if not, it must clearly show the reason why.

The Event Known as the Holocaust
At this level there are two questions which theological research is called upon to confront: how does it interrogate the Holocaust and, above all, how does it let itself be questioned by the Holocaust?

With regard to the first question, an increasing number of theologians are coming to see that the Nazi genocide is something more than just one monstrous event among many. On this subject Gregory Baum writes:
"The Holocaust must not be reduced to a monstrous criminal act to be deplored and then forgotten. Auschwitz has a message that must be heard: it reveals an illness operative not on the margin of our civilization but at the heart of it, in the very best we have inherited. The Holocaust challenges the foundations of Western society. It obliges us to face up to the negative side of our religious and cultural heritage.(12)

Franklin Littell is even more explict; for him the Holocaust
"has been and remains the fundamental event in the modern history of Christianity because it calls into question the entire edifice of Christianity and the very language of traditional religion. If it does not face up to the significance of the Holocaust, Christianity will continue along the road of spiritual sickness, a sickness that could be mortal." (13)

If it is already a delicate task for theological research to cross-examine the Holocaust, it is even more delicate when it allows itself to be cross-examined and questioned in turn. In Catholic circles J.B. Metz is the theologian who more than any other has shown himself sensitive to the issue. He has insisted for quite a while that Auschwitz is and must represent a "break" in the manner of theologizing, and that every theology is "blasphemy" if it wants to leave out of consideration this catastrophic event or go `beyond" its unfathomable iniquity without accepting its importance and the challenge it offers.(14) Besides stressing this methodological and hermeneutical exigence, J.B. Metz has the courage to pass stern judgment, accusing theology of having neither reacted to nor been changed by Auschwitz:
°The dead of Auschwitz should have changed everything, and nothing should have been able to continue as before, neither among our people nor within our churches, especially within our churches! They at least should have perceived the spiritual catastrophe that Auschwitz signified, which has left neither our people nor our community unscathed. Instead, what point have we in fact reached, we Christians and middle-class citizens of this country? Not only the point where all has once more become as it was in the beginning, with Auschwitz considered as merely an incident, however deplorable, in the day's work!. Already today there are growing signs of a new climate of thought in which the causes for the terror of Auschwitz are being sought, not only among the assassins and persecutors, but also among their victims and the persecuted. "

In a recent article appearing in Concilium entitled: Facing the Jews: Christian Theology after Auschwitz, the German theologian reconsiders this theme, summarizing his thought in the following four theses:(15)

First thesis: Christian theology after Auschwitz must be guided by the understanding that Christians can only comprehend their own identity in the presence of the Jewish people.

Second thesis: Christian theology can preserve its identity only when faced with the history of the faith of the Jews and in relationship to it.

Third thesis: With this object in view, Christian theology must re-evaluate the Jewish dimension present in Christian faith and overcome the barrier which imprisons the Jewish heritage present in Christianity.

Fourth thesis: It is called upon to rediscover in a special way the biblical messianic dimension.
For the Jewish scholar Susan Shapiro, the Holocaust is seen not only as a "break" within the theological discourse, but also in every other discourse. It does, and must, bring about change, not only in the "discussion about God" but also in the "discussion about man"; not only in theology but also in history and anthropology:
"Not only has the subsequent course of history been shaped by this event, but our assumptions about the world in which we live, about the nature of the human subject and of the Divine, have been thrown into question, even negated. What does it mean to be human in a world that performed and passively witnessed such destruction? And how can we now imagine or conceive of a God who did not save under those circumstances? In what sort of language might we even frame these questions and to whom might we address them? Have not the very coherence of language and the continuity of tradition been broken, shattered by this event?

It is not only the meanings of particular words in particular languages that have been corrupted and, thus, broken by the event. It is the very coherence and meaning of language in general and of God-language in particular that was negated. This rupture within language is the radical negation of our assumptions and conceptions of the human subject that ground the very coherence of language.(16)

The Question of Antisemitism
In a recent investigation conducted by the Roman municipality to find out the attitude of the city's population towards the ethnic — religious minority groups, an underlying Italian antisemitism came to light unexpectedly and has given cause for concern. 3% of those interviewed (Catholics, Protestants, laity, atheists) would Eke to see the Jews expelled from Italy — 4096 hoped that would never need to have anything to do with the descendants of Abraham and Moses, while another 40% still accepted the stereotype of the Jew as a close-fisted business man, an exploiter of others' labor, intolerant, narrow-minded and somewhat violent. These facts, which belie the opinion of those who hold that antisemitism has no place in the Italian mentality, also confirm A.M. Di Nola's thesis of three different levels of antisemitism: Catholic, Nazi-Fascist and Leftist.(17) They are even more striking when compared with the Jewish reply, according to which 90% of those interviewed declared that they have no difficulty in being friendly with Christians.

Given the antisemitic attitude which still prevails in the psychic make-up of most Christians, theology must question the part played by a certain type of 'language' which was, and still is, used, especially in the areas of liturgy, catechetics and pastoral care. (An example from the not-so-distant past is that of "Oremus pro perfidis Judaeis"). All of the above are still happening, notwithstanding the turning-point of Nostra Aetate and the numerous official declarations made by episcopal conferences all over the world.(18)

But over and above the question of popular anti semitism (popular in the sense that it is expressed in the thought and speech patterns of the people), theology is called upon to examine itself on the issue of theological antisemitism (or rather, theological anti-Judaism). This seems at times still to exist under the cloak of a thinly disguised Marcionism.(19) An example of this is A. von Harnack, the most illustrious of the Protestant theologians. From 1890 to 1930 he trained an entire generation of Protestant pastors with teaching such as this: To conserve the Old Testament constitutes a
"'religious paralysis' for the church; the Jews are the worst among the peoples, the most atheistic nation and of all the nations on earth the one farthest from God. They are the devil's own, the synagogue of Satan, a community of hypocrites.”(20) Even if from the time of Harnack until today much water has passed under the bridge, theology does not yet seem to have totally freed itself from the temptation of Marcionism, not only through the perpetuation of outdated stereotypes (the God of the Old Testament is a God of justice and revenge contrasted with the God of the New Testament as a God of love; identification of the Torah with precepts, Judaism with legalism and the Pharisees with hypocrisy and superficiality; the destruction of the Temple seen as the end of Judaism, etc...); but above all, through the claim that it is necessary to de-Judaize theology in order to be universal. This new form of theological antisemitism has been pointed out recently by the Jewish scholar, D. Flusser in his long and beautiful introduction" to Clemens Thoma's book: A Christian Theology of Judaism (21).He writes:
"Even today Christianity is not yet capable of realising that it can proclaim its message without any trace of antisemitism. Even now, directly and indirectly, we hear from pulpit-theologians of the established churches that Christianity must be 'de-Judaized'. That is an alarm signal which indicates that, deliberately or not, consciously or subconsciously, representative Christian intellectuals become spokesmen for a modern 'anti-Judaism' and that is not without danger." (22)

The author explains this covert process of the de.. Judaization of Christian theology with the theory/hypothesis of a "trauma" from which it has not yet been able to liberate itself:
"Even if it were true that all Christian theology is ready to consider Jews theologically as brothers, and even if we disregard the recent wave of a-Jewish and anti-Jewish Christian theology, the impact of this trauma cannot be compared to the existence of other non-Christian religions, nor to the alarm about numerous defections from Christianity in Christian countries. The Jewish trauma of Christian theology is stronger and deeper than others, which is tragic and grotesque. Disciples of Sigmund Freud could see such a trauma as a phenomenon of the Oedipus complex, an ambivalent, strained relationship with the father. But it should be evident that a neurosis of this kind is unworthy of Christianity's lofty message of love." (23)

Besides theological antisemitism, Christian research is also called to face up to what is known as biblical antisemitism, about which some authors, conscious-struck and converted by the Holocaust, have already begun to talk. Rosemary Ruether in Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism,(24) written in 1974, holds that the anti-Jewish roots are not recent growths in the Church, but can be traced back to the language of the New Testament and above all to the statements of Christology. She writes harshly and provocatively that antisemitism is "the left hand of Christology"(25 )and if theology wants to free itself from the anti-Jewish virus it must in the first place rid itself of this limb. On the Jewish side, D. Flusser is always ready, with his implacable sincerity, to challenge the theological conscience with the problem of antisemitism underlying the New Testament texts:
"Unfortunately, I now have to talk of antisemitism in the New Testament because a Christian theology of Judaism cannot bypass it. Practically everyone these days attempts to prove that there is no anti/ Jewishness in the New Testament. I can well understand this apologetic temptation. Yet, we cannot evade the problem if the evil is to be grasped by the roots. There is no other cure. I myself used to be blind to this question, but more intensive research convinced me otherwise. The New Testament contains accusations and theses which at times are hostile towards certain groups of Jews or toward all of them. Some passages even call in doubt the very essence of Jewish faith and Jewish law. If a Christian were to find anywhere such inimical statements about Christianity, would he not call them anti-Christian? I even dare say that many Christians would not hesitate to state openly their more or less pronounced anti-Jewishness if such passages were found anywhere else but in the New Testament." (26)

The questions raised by R. Ruether and D. Flusser are undoubtedly serious, and apart from facile replies from those who only too easily want to discover anti-Judaism in the New Testament, or from those who equally easily and uncritically seek to deny it, one thing cannot be overlooked: the need for a serious commitment to biblical hermeneutics and a re-reading of the New Testament; both these things would help towards a dear and true distinction in Christian writings between the liberating "word" of God and the "human words" in which it is incarnated and which inevitably put limits upon it.

The Protoschism
"There is only one really important ecumenical question: our relationship with Judaism." According to this fat-sighted affirmation of Karl Barth, made on the occasion of his visit to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1966, the problem of the divisions which have torn and still do tear apart the Christian Churches, calls firstly for the correct attitude towards and the solution of the break between the Church and the Jewish people, namely the ecclesial protoschism. The Church "refused" Israel because Israel had "refused" Christ: the protoschism calls into question and demands self-examination of this perverse logic of exclusion which, instead of healing the breach, stresses it and makes it a radical one.

Apart from the historical motives which led to the separation of Church and Synagogue, which themselves need to be investigated and reconstructed objectively, the question of the protoschism faces theology with three fundamental questions: the first looks at the meaning of Israel's "No" to the gospel. This "No" has been interpreted too easily as a sign of refusal, as "hardness of heart" and "obstinacy". But why not see in this "No" the sign of a fidelity to truth, or to a "part" of truth perceived and jealously guarded? In the "No" of Catholics to some Protestant positions, or vice-versa, is there not perhaps also fidelity to a "truth" rather than bad faith or wilful blindness? This analogy ought to help us re-read the Jewish "No", discovering in it that "Yes° which goes beyond the facile solutions which would see good or evil only on one side. With regard to this "No", Martin Cunz has written recently:
"The Jewish `No' is part of the gospel and therefore is part of the mystery of the Church. It makes us understand that the Messianic question is not resolved once and for all in Jesus Christ but remains open until the end of time."(27)

The second question concerns the relationship between Israel's "No" to the gospel and Israel's election, which continues to exist. In the celebrated chapters 9-11 of his letter to the Romans, Paul treated this problem:
"It is the only (N.T.) document seriously concerned with the question and responding in a pro-Jewish manner, Paul emphasizes that the election of Israel by grace cannot be abrogated, not even after the Jews refused to believe in Christ. Paul does not attempt to evaluate that continued existence in theological terms, nor the effects of Israel's election by grace. Paul saw non-Christian Jews in the perspective of a future when all Israel will be saved. In my opinion, such an eschatological view is not sufficient for our time; Christian theologies must try to interpret for our day the existence of non-Christian Israel here and now.” (28)

A last question looks at the place of Israel in God's plan and within the Church. It is clear that if, as Paul would wish, this "No" of Israel is not to be interpreted as a denial involving loss of election, then Israel's permanence becomes an internal problem for the Church, that is to say, an ecclesial and ecclesiological one. With regard to this role of Israel, F.Mussner speakes of the “irrevocable rooting of the Church in Israel”(29) , while the Jewish scholars, F. Rosenzweig and W. Heiberg see the role of Jesus as a broadening and universalizing of the Jewish covenant and not, contrary to the popular idea, its annulment and replacement. The first writes:
"It is the Christians who need Jesus Christ and not the Jews, because if Jesus is the way to the Father, the Jews have always known the Father?

And the second writer says:
"By means of Christ, God's covenant with Israel is open to all humanity; the task of the Church is to open up God's covenant with Israel to the other nations of the world" (30)

The Question of the Origins/Foundation of the Church
There is no doubt that Judaism gave birth to the Church since Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the apostles were all of Jewish parentage and were themselves "pious° Jews. But how should we understand the process whereby Church is born from Synagogue, New Testament from Old Testament, second Covenant from first Covenant? It is also undeniably true that Jesus is the "founding" event of the Christian community which he both structures and legitimizes. Here again it must be asked how this "foundation" of the Church is to be understood: as a going out of the Church community from Israel or as a gathering in of the sons and daughters of Israel around the Messiah? In the first instance the prevailing logic would be one of separation and contrast, while in the second, one of dialogue and complementarity. Even if these two "logics" are not necessarily mutually exclusive and must themselves be integrated in as much as they are interdependent on each other, it is obvious that the prevalence of one or the other greatly influences theology and in particular, ecclesiology.

Gerhard Lohfink in Die Sammlung Israel:. Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie (31) analyzes Luke's concept of the Church and shows that the Church is not a substitute for Israel but in fact identifies herself with the true Israel. This is how the author summarizes his thought:
"According to the way Luke looks at this question (if the Church was founded by Christ) a negative answer has to be given, notwithstanding the fact that even Luke sees the decisive importance of Jesus in the birth of the Church. This is not immediately clear if by Church is meant a new faith community alongside Israel or within Israel because Jesus, according to Luke, did not intend to found a new faith community, but rather to gather in the whole of Israel; also, in the first moment of the Church's existence as a new faith community, she exists neither alongside Israel nor within Israel hut rather identifies herself with the true Israel. One can speak of Jesus founding the Church only if by Church is meant the gathering in of Israel by the Messiah, in a shattering demonstration of the sovereignty of God. In this context, however, Luke does not yet use the term `Church' because Jesus, according to Luke's vision, began gathering in Israel, but did not bring it to its plenitude.
According to Luke, Jesus had a decisive role to play, he takes initiatives which are important for the future Church which is always in his mind's eye; but he is not her founder. In Luke's gospel there are no texts which show his work to be an act of creation or foundation. The election of the apostles and their sending out does not have this function; neither does the institution of the Last Supper, not the death of Jesus on the cross, nor the word of the Risen Lord after Easter. We can therefore conclude, as far as Luke is concerned, Jesus did not found the Church." (32)

A perspective such as this does more justice to that heritage which, according to Nostra Aerate, is common both to Israel and the Church: the "yothesia" (sonship), the glory, the covenant, the worship, the promises. These and other realities, instead of distancing the Church from Israel, irreversibly root her in Israel.

A growing awareness of this common heritage and this rooting in Israel is bound to influence the restructuring of theology. In 1983 the International Council of Christians and Jews prepared several guidelines for systematic theology, inviting professors in these disciplines to draw out the appropriate inferences to be derived from the existence of a common heritage between Judaism and Christianity — what suggestions, for example, they might have with regard to the covenant, a key concept for both faiths:
"The implications of the acknowledgement that the 'Jewish covenant has not been revoked' by God remain also to be developed, and stand as a challenge to the central categories of traditional Christian doctrinal affirmation. Here too, biblicists and systematicians need to work together. "(33)

The existence and the recognition of this common heritage imply above all the construction of a new theological model with which to represent the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. The question is how to resolve adequately this so-called problem of continuity/discontinuity or complemetarity/differentiation between the two peoples of the covenant while respecting both historical truth and Jewish sensitivity.
Historically theology has both known and used the model of contrast (the Church contra the Synagogue) and the model of superiority (the Church superior to the Synagogue) neither of which has always escaped the temptation to disqualify or, even worse, to eliminate the Jewish people. The question is whether it is possible to develop a new model, that of integration, whereby the two people of the one covenant are not opposed to one another hut reciprocally support and enrich each other.

It is perhaps one of the more urgent tasks of theology to develop a 'terminology' which, in a world deeply wounded by Auschwitz, would cease to be divisive but rather have the power to bring about a reconciliation.

The Significance of Jewish Categories for Christian Theology
Christianity initially understood itself — and it had no other means of self-understanding — through the use and development of Jewish categories which only.slowly, and at a later date, gave way to the Greco-Roman mode of thought.

Today Christianity is involved in the colossal task of re-interpreting its basic structures; called to a process of inculturation in the face of new universal cultures, arising out of either the post-modern crisis or the people of the third world, it could undoubtedly be helped in this task by reference back to Jewish categories.

A propos of this, D. Flusser writes..
"Pre-Christian and post-Christian Jewish experience could greatly help Christianity to solve a number of questions.
There are situations when Judaism has greater experience than Christianity and its theology rests on surer foundations. Yet the reverse holds true as well. Judaism can learn a great deal from Christian treatment of common problems. Judaism and Christianity could be likened to two students with similar backgrounds who have been assigned the same tasks. It is quite fitting, then, that these two should not keep from one another their experience and attempts at solutions but should rather help each other." (34)

And further on he states:
We cannot help thinking that by a thorough confrontation of Christian dogmatics with its Jewish components, Christian theology would be plucked out of the Middle Ages and set down in truly modem times." (35)

It could be valuable to touch upon some areas where a return to Jewish categories is demonstrably useful: that of the de-Hellenization of Christian thought, for instance, and the re-interpretation of the Christological mystery.

Recently J. Ellul in La Subversion du Christianisme (36) defined the transition of Christianity from Jewish to Greek categories as a sad and tragic 'deviation':
'Nevertheless, another fundamental deviation appeared during the third to the thirteenth centuries. This was the result of the penetration of Greek thought into Christian theological and intellectual circles... It was this interpretation, this attempt to fuse the Greek and the Jew that gave rise to almost all the theological quarrels and heretical dramas! It must be well understood that Greek and Jewish thought are radically opposed to one another, irreconcilable, incomprehensible the one to the other... From the moment revelation began to be thought of in Greek categories, the essence of that revelation was totally and radically lost. It was completely deformed and I think this is one of the intellectual sources of the anti-Judaism which developed in the Church; Christians, clouded by Greek and Latin, no longer understood anything o/ Jewish thought, piety and rites." (37)

Although J. Ellul's argument seems radical and in need of nuancing, it is difficult to deny its crucial importance; it is the task of theology to take it up and examine it closely.

The second example is taken from Christology which, by common consent, is the area of theology which more than any other has suffered and still suffers from being uprooted from its Jewish categories and from being voiced in the strident tones of Greco-Roman terminology. L. Swidler, the author most sensitive to this problem, has written:
"Jews never thought of the Meshiach (Christ) (and who else thought of a Meshiach but a Jew?) as being divine in the ontological sense. For the Jews this language was always understood in a non-ontological sense. And Yeshua and his first followers were Jews. They thought and spoke as Jews. Consequently, when speaking of Yeshua as Meshiach, or even in the transformed, spiritualized sense of Christos, these Jews were not speaking ontologically. It was not the Jews but the Greeks who developed the ontological framework of thinking." (38)

Any theological reflection which wants to he hermeneutically based and historically valid, cannot fail to take into consideration this affirmation, even though it cannot be accepted uncritically in all its consequences. The same author continues:
"Pouring ontological meaning into the non-ontological, Jewish language of Rabbi Yeshua and his first Jewish followers is to engage not in exegesis but in eisegesis, not in Imitatione Christi but in Imitatione Mei. "(39)
He concludes with a big question/answer directed at theological research, above all in the field of Christology:
"But what about the christological dogmas of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon? Are they not full of ontological meanings? Whatever they are, surely they should be understood in the light of what Yeshua and his first followers understood themselves to be teaching and they understood themselves Jewishly, i.e., non-ontologically in these matters. "(40)

Examples could be multiplied, but the two already alluded to are sufficient to show how enriching biblical Jewish categories would be for the renewal of a Christian theology which desires to be more faithful to the Word of God and closer to the needs of humanity.

Midrash on Prayer
Jewish-Christian dialogue constitutes a challenge to Christian theological research, forcing it to revise its terminology, its aims and its methods. A modern midrash says:
"On a certain day, in a small town, at a time when the most cruel violence stalked the land, the Nazis massacred in the same place, and at the same time, one hundred Jews, one hundred Catholics and one hundred Moslems.
Each year on the anniversary, representatives of the three faiths meet at the site of the mass-murder in order to commemorate the event. The local Burgomaster gives a speech and three ministers pray for the souls of the victims from three different places in the field. The Catholic priest prays according to his rite, the Jewish rabbi prays according to his rite, and finally the Moslem prays according to his.
The wise and holy Rabbi Melt, who knows all that goes on in heaven, tells how one day the three hundred souls of the three hundred victims asked to be presented before the Heavenly Throne. Their request was granted and thus they turned to the Holy of Holies. 'King of the Universe', they said, 'together we were victims of the same murderer, together we were victims of the same act of violence and now, here above, the soul of each one of us is closely united to that of the other. If men want to remember what happened on that agonizing day, we would like one single prayer to be said for us. The divisions and differences that still exist on the earth offend and sadden us." (41)

Up to the present day, in common with other ideologies, it is paradoxical that faiths and religions have served to divide rather than unite. It is the duty of theological research to reverse this process by contributing, in serious dialogue, to the elimination of those "divisions" and "differences" that still exist upon earth and which "offend and sadden".
The starting point has to be that division between Jews and Christians which, with the violence of the Holocaust, has offended and saddened as no other both the face of God and the face of humanity.

Notes
* Carmine Di Sante is theological consultant at the SIDIC Center in Rome. After his theological studies he specialized in Liturgical Studies at S. Anselmo, Rome and in Psychology at the University of Rome. The original Italian version of this article is appearing in Rassegna di Teologia, XXVI, No. 3 (1985). We are indebted to its editors for their kind permission to publish this translation.
1. Cf. F. Lovsky: Le Petiple d'Israel dans l'Education Chrêtienne, Societe des Ecoles du Dimanche, Paris (undated); C.H. Bishop: How Catholics Look at Jews: Inquiries into Italian, Spanish and French Teaching Materials, Paulist Press, New York 1947; M. Krajzman: L'image des Juifs et du Judaisme: Un Analyse des Manuels d'Histoire de Langue Francaise de l'Enseignement Secondaire Officiel en Belgique, Brussels 1973; J. Pawlikowski: Catechetics and Prejudice: How Catholic Teaching Materials View Jews, Protestants and Racial Minorities, Paulist Press, New York 1973; F. Houtart, G. Lemercinier: Les Juifs dans la Catêch?s: Etude sur la Transmission des Codes Religieux, Vie Ouvrierc, Brussels 1972; 0. Klincberg, T. Tentori et al., Religione e Pregiudizio: Analisi di contenuto dei Libri di Insegnamento Religioso Cattolici in Italia e in Spagna, Roma 1967; A.M. Di Nola: Antisemitismo in Italia 1962-1972, Vallecchi, Firenze 1973. Cf. also C. Di Sante: Come Parlare degli Ebrei nelle Omelie in Servizio della Parola no. 159 (1984) pp. 3-7.
2. F. Mussner: Tractate on the Jews, S.P.C.K. London, 1984 (extracts in this article translated from the Italian: Il Popolo della Promessa: Per it Dialogo Ebraico-Cristiano, Citta Nuova, Roma 1982); C. Thoma: A Christian Theology of Judaism, Stimulus, New York, 1980.
3. F. Mussner, op. cit., ch. I. C. Thoma, op. cit., Forward, pp. 1-19.
4. F.Mussner, op. cit., p. 11.
5. A. Bea: Die Kirche und das Jiidishe Volk, Freiburg 1966; H. Spaemann: Die Christen und das Volk der Juden, Munchen 1966; J. Blank: Das Mysterium Israel in W. Strolz ed.: .iiidische Hoffnung und das Christliche Glaube, Friburgo 1971, pp. 133-190; T. Federici: Israele Vivo, Missioni Consolata, Torino 1962.
6. Some of these questions were asked by the author of a group of theologians and professors from pontifical universities at a meeting organized at SIDIC October 7, 1984.
6a.Whereas the English text says "milestone", the Italian text uses the word: "svolta" (turning-point).
7. Cf. complete text in H. Groner, ed.: Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations, Stimulus, New York 1977, pp. 11-16.
8. In Una svolta nei rapporti Ira la Chiesa cattolica e gli ebreil (Conference held at Turin 19 April, 1964) Fondazione Ebraica 'C. De Levy', p. 9.
9. lb., pp. 9-10.
10. lb., p. 10.
11. lb., p. 10.
12. In the Introduction to R. Ruether: Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism, Seabury Press, New York, p. 7. Cf. Concilium no. 5 (1984) dedicated to a theological study of the Holocaust.
13.Quoted by C. Mannucci: Antisemilismo e Ideologia Cristiana sugli Ebrei, Unicopli, Milano 1982, p. 165.
14. In Al di la della Religione Borghese: Dicorsi std futuro del cristianesimo, Queriniana, Brescia1981, p. 27.
15. Concilium, cit. supra, pp. 50-65.
16. S. Shapiro: Concilium, English Edition, p. 3.
17. In Antisemitismo in Italia 1962-1972, cit., pp. 14-21.
18. Cf. H. Groner, op. cit.
19. Cf. F. Lovsky: Sguardo Teologico Crittiano sull'Antisemitismo, in 11 Regno/Documenti, 11 (1984), pp. 365-370.
20. lb., p. 367.
21. This positive and enthusiastic judgment is taken from a review of Thoma's op. cit. in Studia Patavina 31 (1984), p. 216.
22. D. Flusser, in Forward, cit. supra.
23. lb.
24. Op. cit. An important discussion has followed Rusher's work. Cf. A. Davies: Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity: Twelve Christian Theologians Explore the Development and Dynamics of Antisemitism within the Christian Tradition, Paulist Press, New York 1979.
25. P. 12.
26. Forward to C. Thoma: op. cit.
27. Discourse to a Jewish-Christian group of SAE (Segretariato Attivita Ecumeniche) in 1984.
28. D. Flusser: Forward to C. Thome: op. cit.
29. In A Christian Theology of Judaism, especially, pp. 74-89.
30. In D. Kirkpatrick, ed:. The Finality of Christ, Abingdon, Nashville 1966, pp. 91-101.
31. Kesel, Munchen 1975. Passage translated from the Italian: La Raccolta d'Israele: Una ricerca sull'ecclesiologia lucana, Marietti, Casale Monferrato 1983.
32. lb., p. 114.
33. Cf. SIDIC Review XVIII, No. 1 (1985) p. 31
34. Forward to C. Thoma, op. cit.
35. lb.
36. Editions de Scull, Paris 1984.
37. The author has summarized the principal theses of his book in Sens 8 (1984), pp. 295f.
38.Journal of Ecumenical Studies Vol. 18:1, 1981: The Jewishness of Jesus: Some Religious Implications for Christians, p. 112.
39. lb.
40. lb.
41. A. Sonnino: Racconti Chassidici dei Nostri Tempi, Carucci, Assisi/Roma 1978, pp. 81-82.