5 reasons to read Taylor Marshall's new book, The Crucified Rabbi

This is reposted from Taylor Marshall's blog. I'm looking forward to buying and reading and reviewing this book!

At last! My new book The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity is finally published!

It's a book about how the Catholic Church best fulfills the Old Testament promises with regard to Messianic prophecies (over 300 listed). This includes analysis of Catholic baptism, the Holy Eucharist, the Papacy, the role and place of the Blessed Virgin Mary, liturgy, architecture, prayers for the dead, saints, martyrdom, suffering, the afterlife, etc.

It's now available at Amazon.com.

Here are five reasons why you should read The Crucified Rabbi:

1. The Crucified Rabbi lists over 300 Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Similar lists have been compiled by Protestants, but this treatment is unique in that it also includes Messianic prophecies from the Deuterocanoncial books (e.g. Wisdom, 2 Maccabees, etc.). As far as I know, this is the only book that has a full "Catholic" treatment.
2. The Crucified Rabbi explains how the Old Covenant foretold a structure resembling the Catholic Church. As Pope Benedict observed, the Jewish notion of "kingdom" is the key to understanding Messianic prophecy and the shape and structure of the Catholic Church.
3. The Crucified Rabbi demonstrates how the Catholic sacraments derive from the rituals and signs of the Old Covenant economy. We examine how baptism fulfills the ceremonial washings of the Moses and how its rooted in creation imagery. We also examine the Passover as it relates to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass--showing the Eucharist must be sacrificial and that Christ must be eaten as the Lamb.
4. The Crucified Rabbi shows how traditional Catholic architecture and vestments derive their significance from the Old Covenant Temple and other ceremonial features. As far as I know, no other book has this sort of analysis all in one place.
5. In The Crucified Rabbi, I explain how a chance meeting with a Jewish rabbi, back when I was an Episcopalian priest, led me to renounce the Anglican ministry and embrace the Catholic Faith.

Please visit the profile page for the book on Amazon.com here: The Crucified Rabbi at amazon.com.

The over-arching principle of dialogue; or, why Jewish-Catholic dialogue in America is floundering

Back in 1964 (in the midst of the Second Vatican Council), Pope Paul VI wrote his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, "His Church" – that is, Jesus Christ's Church.  This encyclical mentioned dialogue between the Church and the world.  Pope Paul explained that there is "a series of concentric circles around the central point in which God has placed us." (ES 96)

One of these circles

is vast in its extent, yet it is not so far away from us. It is made up of the men who above all adore the one, Supreme God whom we too adore.

We refer to the children, worthy of our affection and respect, of the Hebrew people, faithful to the religion which we call that of the Old Testament. Then to the adorers of God according to the conception of Monotheism, the Moslem religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God. And also to the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions.

Obviously we cannot share in these various forms of religion nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that each of them, in its own way, should regard itself as being the equal of any other and should authorize its followers not to seek to discover whether God has revealed the perfect and definitive form, free from all error, in which he wishes to be known, loved and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that there is but one true religion, the religion of Christianity. It is our hope that all who seek God and adore Him may come to acknowledge its truth.

But we do, nevertheless, recognize and respect the moral and spiritual values of the various non-Christian religions, and we desire to join with them in promoting and defending common ideals of religious liberty, human brotherhood, good culture, social welfare and civil order. For our part, we are ready to enter into discussion on these common ideals, and will not fail to take the initiative where our offer of discussion in genuine, mutual respect, would be well received. (ES 107-108)

What he is saying is that these other religions regard themselves as at least as good (if not better) than any other religion, and certainly they wouldn't promote among their own adherents the idea of seeking "the perfect and definitive" revelation of God.  The Catholic Church believes (and cannot believe otherwise) that "there is but one true religion, the religion of Christianity."  And she believes that dialogue with members of other religions can never be an excuse for us to fail to declare that conviction, that the Christian religion alone is true.

With that in mind, I think you should read this PDF ("Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission"), followed by this PDF (a response to rabbis who were offended by the first document) and this PDF ("Statement of Principles" on Jewish-Catholic dialogue).

What are we doing!?  Dialogue between Catholics and Jews is being systematically neutered by people who don't want to hurt feelings by making bold claims of objective truth.  The Catholic Church is convicted that her religion is the true one, God's perfect and definitive revelation of Himself and how He wishes to be served and loved.  Read the Acts of the Apostles:  see what Sts. Peter and Paul did to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone, especially to Jews.  See what they risked!

And now we are supposed to accept that dialogue is not supposed to contain an invitation to baptism.  Really?  That's what the very first dialogue contained!

[Acts 2:14] But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. ... [36] Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ [Messiah], this Jesus whom you crucified."

[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"

[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."  [40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."

[41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Are we really going to abandon the Great Commission?  Is it no longer permitted to invite Jews to baptism?  This sort of thing really saddens me, that some Catholics in America have forgotten the essential evangelical character of the Christian religion.

Scripture: The Passover and the Eucharist

I attended an instructional workshop on the Passover last night at St. Joseph's in Hillsborough. It was led by Gregory Glazov, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Immaculate Conception Seminary's school of Theology (at Seton Hall). This was a more intensive look at the Passover Seder, and Greg made a number of important theological connections. The bread and cup of wine that Jesus blessed, for example, most likely coincide with the afikomen and third cup (the cup of redemption, also called the cup of blessing).

Also brought up was the way in which the Passover meal was not a "memorial", per se, but was a making-present of the Passover celebrated in Egypt. In the same way, Catholics believe the Eucharist at the altar is not a "memorial" or representation (what most non-Catholic Christians believe) but rather the making-present of the new Passover meal, the body and blood of the true Lamb, re-presented as though we were there receiving it when it was first instituted. Jesus inserted himself into the Passover ritual, and stopped things after that third cup. While he was in Gethsemane, he prayed that the cup might pass him by: perhaps the "cup of wrath" or perhaps the fourth cup of the passover (the cup of restoration).

It was an excellent experience, and there was good conversation as well. I plan on looking at Psalms 113-118 (the Hallel) at Bible Study during Holy Week; hopefully, I can work some of this information in.

Liturgy News: New prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form

This is via Gregor Kollmorgen at The New Liturgical Movement:

The following from tomorrow's edition of the Osservatore Romano (first the original, then my translation):

Nota della Segreteria di Stato
Con riferimento alle disposizioni contenute nel Motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum", del 7 luglio 2007, circa la possibilità di usare l'ultima stesura del Missale Romanum, anteriore al Concilio Vaticano II, pubblicata nel 1962 con l'autorità del beato Giovanni XXIII, il Santo Padre Benedetto XVI ha disposto che l'Oremus et pro Iudaeis della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo contenuto in detto Missale Romanum sia sostituito con il seguente testo: Oremus et pro Iudaeis Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum. Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate. Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. Tale testo dovrà essere utilizzato, a partire dal corrente anno, in tutte le Celebrazioni della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo con il citato Missale Romanum. Dal Vaticano, 4 febbraio 2008.

Translation:

Note by the Secretariat of State:

With reference to the dispositions contained in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007, regarding the possibility to use the last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the II Vatican Council, published in 1962 by authority of Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Father Benedict XVI has decided that the Oremus et pro Judæis of the liturgy of Good Friday contained in said Missale Romanum be substituted by the following text:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may enlighten their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all men. Let us pray. Let us bend our knees. Rise. Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and attain the knowledge of the truth, propitiously grant that as the fulness of the Gentiles enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

This text must be used, beginning in the current year, in all celebrations of the Liturgy of Good Friday according to the said Missale Romanum.

From the Vatican, 4 February 2008

I am curious to see how this is promulgated, and if it will also be mandated for those who use the 1975/2002 Roman Missal.

Debate: The 1962 Good Friday rite and the Jewish people

I've done a "diablog" once; now I'll be doing a point-counterpoint with someone who's not a blogger, but a personal friend of mine. The issue at hand is an article from America that he mailed me a few days ago about the "Latin Liturgy" (that is, the 1962 Missal) and the Jews: specifically, the Good Friday rite and its prayer for the Jews.

I read the article, and had something to say about it. The article from an October 2007 issue (which is not available online) is titled "The Latin Liturgy and the Jews". The gist of the article is that the 1962 prayer is damaging for Catholic-Jewish relations -- because it is uninformed by the reforms of Vatican II (specifically Nostra Aetate) -- and that the 1970 prayer should replace it. There are generally two reasons why the 1970 prayer would replace the 1962 prayer: either a) they say the same thing (but the 1970 prayer says it "better"), or b) they say different things (and the 1962 prayer said the "wrong" thing). The article more or less implies b, that the 1962 prayer is "wrong", but near the very end, it seems like it might just be implying a, that the 1970 prayer says the same thing in more sensitive language.

What follows is, verbatim, my email to my friend responding to the article. When I get his response, I will record it below mine (or perhaps interspersed -- it depends on how he formats his reply). He plans to send me his reply sometime this weekend.

---

Jeff's response to the article

Thanks for sending me the America article; I had not yet seen it. I don't know if you sent it to me after reading a recent post of mine on my blog, but if not, the mailing was well-timed. Permit me to offer my comments on the article; I'm sorry it's lengthy, but I want to make myself clear in my position. (If you don't have any objections, I'd like to post my response to this article on my blog.)

First, I'd like to provide the Latin of the prayer for the Jews from the 1962 rite (along with a fair English translation):

Oremus et pro Iudæis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. (Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate) Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Iudæos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcæcatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuæ luce, quæ Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus: per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

Here is the English translation from my 1961 Daily Missal:

Let us pray also for the Jews, that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts; that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. (Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise.) Almighty and everlasting God, You drive not even the Jews away from Your mercy; hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people, that, acknowledging the light of Your truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through the same, etc. Amen.

Having this will come in handy for supporting the points I make in my commentary.

The authors write (emphasis mine):

That missal ... contains a prayer for use on Good Friday that singles out Jews for conversion, attributes to them a particular blindness and asks God to lift the "veil from their hearts." This inches perilously close to a view of Judaism as a fossilized and invalid faith[.] ... Meanwhile, the Missal of Paul VI in wide use today strikes a categorically different tone, instructing Catholics to pray that the Jewish people "will grow in the love of God's name and in faithfulness to his covenant." (p. 11)

The Good Friday rite does not "single out Jews" in the sense that they are the only people prayed for; on the contrary, there are also prayers for "heretics and schismatics" ( i.e. separated brethren) and "pagans" (i.e. non-Christians). One might ask: where is the outcry from the Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? The "veil" and the "blindness" referred to by the prayer are terms found in Scripture; words spoken by Jesus or written by Paul. Jesus talks of the blindness of the Pharisees on at least two occasions (cf. Matthew 15:12-14; 23:16-26); he also proclaims that his mission includes "recovering ... sight to the blind" (Luke 4:18). Paul wrote: But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. (2 Cor 3:14-16) and again And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. (2 Cor 4:3-4). The prayer could have used language from the First Letter of John, which puts it quite simply that No one who denies the Son has the Father. (1 John 2:22)

Regardless of the status of the Mosaic covenant -- that is, whether Judaism is "a fossilized and invalid faith" -- it is the duty of the Church to pray that everyone may come to know that Jesus is the Christ of God. The "categorically different tone" in the Missal of Paul VI is certainly ambiguous, and if it were not for the tradition of the Church, one might think the prayer is simply asking that God would make sure Jews stay "faithful Jews". But the Church's definition of "faithful Jew" is different from the world's definition of "faithful Jew" -- in asking for Jews to grow in "faithfulness to his covenant", the Church is really (although in ambiguous and lame terminology) asking that they recognize the Messiah: that they be "faithful Jews" in the same way the Apostles and first Christians were!

The authors continue:

John Paul II taught repeatedly that the church's "attitude to the Jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the Catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham" Sydney, Australia, Nov. 26, 1986). Guidelines on Religious Relations With the Jews (1974) states that the witness of Catholics to Jesus Christ should not give offense to Jews. (p. 11)

John Paul's reference here (at least as far as was quoted) is to the Abrahamaic covenant, that through Abraham all nations (not only Israel) would find blessing: this is seen in the opening of the new covenant in Jesus Christ which brought Gentiles into the "people of God" without requiring them to become Jews first: baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. As for the terse 1974 document, the context of "not giv[ing] offense to Jews" is this:

In virtue of her divine mission, and her very nature, the Church must preach Jesus Christ to the world (Ad Gentes, n. 2). Lest the witness of Catholics to Jesus Christ should give offence to Jews, they must take care to live and spread their Christian faith while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae). They will likewise strive to understand the difficulties which arise for the Jewish soul -- rightly imbued with an extremely high, pure notion of the divine transcendence -- when faced with the mystery of the incarnate Word.

In other words, we must preach Jesus to the world, including the Jewish people; in preaching to the Jews, it makes sense to preach Jesus in a different way than to a person who is not under the Mosaic covenant, because Jesus is the fulfillment of a covenant the Jews are familiar with. All it means is that getting Jews to recognize Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah is different than getting "pagans" to recognize Jesus as the Savior of the world who takes away their sins.

The article continues:

Jews around the world remain proudly committed to the faith of their ancestors and the biblical covenant between the children of Abraham and the creator of heaven and earth. (p. 12)

John the Baptist warned the Pharisees not to "presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." (Matthew 3:9) and Paul writes in Romans 11 about the severing of some branches from the tree (which represent Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah) and warns those Gentiles who have been grafted in: They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. (Romans 11:20) Mary recognized her conception of Jesus in this way: "[God] has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever." (Luke 1:54-55) Zachariah, father of John the Baptist, spoke in similar terms, saying that God had brought about the Incarnation "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear..." (Luke 1:72-74) Jesus himself spoke to unbelieving Jews about their relation to Abraham in John 8. To the first Christians (most of whom were Jews), God fulfilled his promise to Abraham through the person of Jesus the Messiah.

But more to the point, this says nothing about the Mosaic covenant, only the Abrahamaic covenant.

Continuing, the article mentions a rabbi that changed a Catholic document:

When Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, an observer at Vatican II and the most important Jewish theologian there, saw that the penultimate version of Nostra Aetate contained an allusion to conversion, on the eve of Yom Kippur he flew to Rome to speak to Pope Paul VI and the council's bishops. He emotionally professed: "If faced with the choice of baptism or the crematoria of Auschwitz, I would choose Auschwitz." The bishops deleted the reference. (p. 12)

Is that what was meant by "Catholics ... should [not] give offence to Jews"? Sentimentality aside -- not that the Holocaust wasn't a terrible crime against Jews and all peoples -- there were plenty of first century Jews who chose baptism, and the early Church spent its days preaching to them for conversion. Were they in error to do so? On the contrary, as Acts 2:37-41 testifies, some three thousand (Jewish!) souls were added that day.

Whether or not the Jews of today like it, Christians call Jesus the Christ, the Messiah; when will that be contested? When will Christians have to start referring to themselves as "Jesusians" so as not to offend those who do not believe Jesus to be the Messiah?

My final remark on the article is from this passage:

... substituting the text of the 1970 prayer in the Roman Missal for the 1962 text could resolve the problems without sacrificing any principle. (p. 13)

Oh it could? If no principle is sacrificed, then the 1970 prayer must say (in substance) what the 1962 prayer says, which means it must be asking God to effect the conversion of the Jews to Christ! If that is truly the case, then the removal of phrases like "blindness" and "veils" is a superficial one (one of language rather than intent), and the Jewish people (or their representatives) have no problem with the Church praying for their conversion (so long as they don't use that nasty "c" word). And yet, I would guess that is not really the case: the representatives of the Jewish people do not want the Church to pray for them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and would prefer the Church use a prayer of ambiguous language that will eventually (if it hasn't already) take on a multi-covenantal meaning where the Church is simply asking God to keep the Jews faithful to their post-destruction-of-the-Temple religion. Lex orandi, lex credendi -- the longer Catholics pray (or hear) the poorly worded prayer and hear this opposition towards the older prayer, the less they'll believe they should actually be praying for the Jews to recognize the fulfillment of their covenant in Jesus for the good of their souls, and the more they'll think that belief in Jesus as the Christ is "extra credit".

Scripture: Out with the old, in with the new?

A fellow blogger, the Weekend Fisher, recently blogged about an article written in the Jerusalem Post ("Nothing old about it") by Shmuley Boteach (SB). The newspaper article suggests that Christians need to retire the term "Old Testament"; Weekend Fisher (WF) considers the various names by which the Old Testament can be called. I left a lengthy response on her blog, but I hadn't made any comments about the arguments made by the article. This blog post will be about both the article and the post. I will tackle the subject of "dispensationalism" which seems to be rearing its ugly head in the Church recently. [The citations I make after quotes refer to the paragraph number of the article and blog post.]

The issue SB takes with the "pejorative" (SB 7) terms Old Testament and New Testament is their connotation: "'New' connotes vibrant, alive and fresh. 'Old' brings to mind stodgy, musty and out-of-date." (SB 4) Moreover, the former projects a bias against the Mosaic covenant and the latter a preference for the Christian covenant. The terms he prefers are "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Bible" (SB 7), terms which I will dissect later. Moreover, Christians have "contradicted themselves by referring to the Hebrew Bible as obsolete". (SB 7) He says it is difficult for America to promote "biblical values ... most of which come from Hebrew Scripture (opposed to the New Testament)" while at the same time considering Hebrew scriptures to be "rejected because of their irrelevance". (SB 9) He questions the juxtaposition of modern-day America being "based on the principles of the 'Old Testament', which suggests an eternal relevance, while describing those same scriptures as archaic and prehistoric". (SB 9)

He suggests new names as part of the "cleaning up [of] the language" which has become a part of our culture: political correctness. Perhaps we should call the Old Testament the Senior Testament? "We no longer call twentysomething women 'girls' or 'gals'. We no longer insultingly refer to Native Americans as Redskins, or to African-Americans as Negroes." (SB 8) I take issue with that last example -- not that I am in the practice of using the word "Negro", but the United Negro College Fund has not changed its name in its 64 years of existence. He also suggests the word "'goyim' ... likewise be retired" because of the "pejorative connotation" it has accumulated. (SB 19) Does humanity now allow a word to be its master? The word goyim means "nation" or "people", and is synonymous with Gentile (that is, a non-Jew). Must we edit our Scriptures now that the term can be used in an offensive manner? Did God's providence fail Him when He placed in the minds of the authors of Scripture that particular word? Surely He must have known it would eventually be used pejoratively!

There is also a confusing sentiment in the article, which sometimes suggests dispensationalism or religious pluralism, and sometimes disregards Christianity. Although he "enjoys an extremely warm relationship with the Christian community and has the highest admiration for [his] Christian brothers and sisters", he notes "sadly, there are Jews who, sometimes out of ignorance for their own faith, find their spiritual home in Christianity." (SB 3) He begins his article by mentioning a "Jewish-born Christian chaplain" who described "how he had chosen Jesus as his personal Messiah". (SB 2)

I do not think Christianity (or Judaism) has ever been about "personal" salvation: God promised something to Abraham and his offspring. It is never about "God and me" (or worse yet "me and God"), it is always about God's action for His people. I don't think it's so much choosing Jesus as your personal savior as it is recognizing Jesus is the world's savior and accepting it. There is not an array of personal saviors out there for us to pick and choose from: there is one Savior who has called us, who has chosen us. It's not a matter of finding your spiritual home, it's a matter of recognizing God's will and freely assenting to it. When you start dispensationalizing it -- that is, saying God made the Mosaic covenant as a concession to the Jews, and the Christian covenant as a concession to some Jews and many Gentiles, and even the Muhammadic (?) covenant as a concession to other Gentiles -- you are making each of those covenants, which proclaim exclusivity, incorrect in that regard, and you make their Author, the Almighty God, a liar.

Historically, the first Christians were Jews. It would appear the rate of conversion to (or, if you prefer another term, rate of acceptance of) Christ of the Jews slowed down rather early on, and Christianity was welcomed more by the myriad pagan Gentiles. But that does not change the fact that the Apostles and disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ sought to educate their fellow Jews about who Jesus was (the Christ, their awaited Messiah) for the sake of their salvation. It was not a matter of turning from God to Christ, it was a matter of acknowledging God's plan in Christ: the alternative was not simply reject this "Jesus" and sticking with God, it was rejecting the Messiah and waiting for God to fulfill a promise already fulfilled! The one who seeks and finds must stop seeking; the one who knocks must stop knocking when the door is opened. Tertullian wrote this some 1800 years ago (Prescription Against Heretics, XI):

[I]f I have believed what I was bound to believe, and then afterwards think that there is something new to be sought after, I of course expect that there is something else to be found, although I should by no means entertain such expectation, unless it were because I either had not believed, although I apparently had become a believer, or else have ceased to believe. If I thus desert my faith, I am found to be a denier thereof. Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except him who either never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The old woman (in the Gospel) had lost one of her ten pieces of silver, and therefore she sought it; when, however, she found it, she ceased to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he knocked; but as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the bread, he discontinued knocking. The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge, because she was not admitted; but when her suit was heard, thenceforth she was silent. So that there is a limit both to seeking, and to knocking, and to asking. “For to every one that asketh,” says He, “it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened, and by him that seeketh it shall be found.” Away with the man who is ever seeking because he never finds; for he seeks there where nothing can be found. Away with him who is always knocking because it will never be opened to him; for he knocks where there is none (to open). Away with him who is always asking because he will never be heard; for he asks of one who does not hear.

I turn now to the blog post. WF rejects (as do I) the terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Bible". To call the Jewish scriptures "Hebrew" (rather than "Jewish") "rejects the idea of a New Testament that is for Hebrews as well", while "[t]he term 'Christian Bible' implies that those books belong to 'another religion' (an idea the Jewish authors of those books rejected)." (WF 2) The fact of the matter is that both sets of Scriptures are divinely inspired by God, for the same people (the whole world) and to the same end (that of revealing the savior of the world, the Messiah, the Christ, our Lord Jesus). The new covenant "is not merely for all nations other than Israel, but ... which includes Israel as the firstborn." (WF 2)

She recognizes the "distaste" for the term Old Testament, and would use "Early Testaments" or "First Testament" if she were to avoid "Old". (WF 3) But she points out the historical status of the Mosaic covenant: "nobody has performed the morning and evening sacrifices since the Romans demolished the Temple in 70 A.D." (WF 3) She considers the term "Worldwide Bible" as a possibility for the New Testament if the Old Testament were called the Hebrew Bible, because it "reveals the Torah" -- that is, "Jesus ... the incarnate, living and breathing Torah of God" -- "going forth from Jerusalem into all the world." (WF 2) She is also content with calling the Old Testament simply by "a value-neutral term ... the 'Tanakh'." (WF 6)

I disagree with Hebrew Bible for the same reasons as WF: there are Hebrews for whom the New Testament is just as much a part of their Bible. In addition, Hebrew is a race, the descendants of Eber (cf. Gen 10:21-24) of whom Abraham is one, not a religion; Judaism is a religion: call it the Jewish Bible if you must. But I also disagree with Christian Bible because it forwards SB's misconception that Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures to be "stodgy, musty, and out-of-date" (SB 4), "turgid and dreary" (SB 6), "obsolete" (SB 7), "archaic and prehistoric" (SB 9). SB supports this with another misconception, that Christianity's "doctrine of exclusivity" insists "on the uselessness of other religions." (SB 11) On the contrary, the Church values that which is true in all religions because it sees in those truths (among the falsehoods) the seeds of the Holy Spirit in preparing those peoples for the true faith of God, preparation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's exactly the same with Judaism: it is true up to the point where it denies a trinitarian God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; it is true up to the point where it denies that Jesus is the Messiah and God. God cannot be truly God if He says to Christians that Jesus is the Messiah and says to Jews that Jesus is not.

Judaism was the seed from which the Gospel sprouted, as Jesus was "born under the law" (Gal 4:4): but unless that seed dies, no fruit will come forth (cf. John 12:24). This is why the temple was destroyed, as a sign that the preceding covenants had done what they were destined to do by their Creator, to lead all peoples and all nations to Christ, the mediator of a "new" (Jer 31:31; Luke 22:20; Heb 8:13), "better" (Heb 7:22), "everlasting" (Jer 32:40, 50:5), and "eternal" (Heb 13:20) covenant. The Mosaic covenant had to be fulfilled and completed: it had to "die" so that the everlasting covenant could spring forth and grow and blossom. The seed had to give way to the glory of the flower.

As for "religious pressure", it is a fine line we walk when one religion can dictate (or strong-arm) another religion's practices, nomenclature, etc. An example is the prayer for the conversion of the Jews found in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the so-called Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass), which some Jews are up in arms about now that the 1962 liturgy is being celebrated more frequently around the world; they want the language changed. The 1960 revision of the prayer dropped the word perfidis (which means "faithless" or "unbelieving", rather than "perfidious" or "treacherous"). Some suggested that the 1965 version of the prayer (or even the 1970 version) be used now when the 1962 liturgy is used. The prayer is for the conversion of the Jews, and it uses scriptural language (as found in the letters of Paul) to Jews as being "blinded" and covered by a "veil" (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; 2 Cor 3:14). We seek the conversion of the hearts not to another God, but to the true identity of God, that they come to believe in and accept Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, true God and true Man.

As for the terminology used, the names Old Testament and New Testament are perfectly acceptable to me (as they were to early Christians). The testament testifies to -- is a witness to -- the covenant; the covenant is not the book nor its pages. The covenant is the pact made between God and His people. The blood of Jesus Christ is the new covenant. The "Old Testament" is an older witness to older covenants. And they are older! We do not insult the older scriptures by calling them so -- ancient and decrepit are not the same.

The fact that they are older does not make them of no use to Christians; on the contrary, the Church has taught that both the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God:

The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts ... are to be received as sacred and canonical ... because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. (Dei Filius, c. II, nn. 6-7)

For what was said and done in the Old Testament was ordained and disposed by God with such consummate wisdom, that things past prefigured in a spiritual way those that were to come under the new dispensation of grace. (Divino Afflante Spiritus, n. 26)

The plan of salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine inspiration, remain permanently valuable. "For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). ... Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence. God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it. (Dei Verbum, nn. 14-16)

So we cannot say that Christians find the Old Testament to be worthless; the Church does not permit us to! Neither can we say that Christians find the old covenants to be worthless, because they were instituted by God for divine reasons so that the new covenant would be receivable by not only Jews but Gentiles as well. However, the older covenants have given way to the new one, which is everlasting. They have served their purpose.

We also have Scriptural evidence of old-vs-new terminology. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16: "But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed." Paul clearly equates reading "Moses" to reading "the old covenant", and says a veil is over the eyes of those who fail (or refuse) to see Christ (i.e. Messiah). The letter to the Hebrews calls the previous covenant "old" as well (Heb 8:6,13).

Also in Hebrews is the term "former commandment", which opens the doorway to the comparison of one covenant being "better" than the other: "On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, 'The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, "Thou art a priest for ever."' This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant." (Heb 7:18-22)

Keeping up this theme of the better covenant in the blood of Jesus (rather than bulls or goats) is Hebrews 8:6 (again): "Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." Even Hebrews 11:39-40 points to the necessity of this new covenant, arguing that the righteous who died with faith in a coming Messiah, "though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect." What does "apart from us they should not be made perfect" mean? I think it means that faithful Jews, before Christ, were not completed in their faith until the Messiah, Jesus Christ, actually came, and so the righteous dead were not made "perfect" until the time of the Christians, which was only begun with the institution of a new covenant. Thus, even those Jews who died in God's grace before the time of Jesus needed this new covenant to be "perfect"!

As for the "first covenant" (a term found in the letter to the Hebrews), we read that "if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second" (Heb 8:7) and that the Holy Spirit, through the prophet Jeremiah, "in speaking of a new covenant ... treats the first as obsolete." (Heb 8:13). The author again uses the term in Hebrews 9:1-18. It might be used again in Hebrews 10:8-10 where the author says that Jesus "abolishes the first in order to establish the second" (Heb 10:9), "the first" referring to the "sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (Heb 10:8) of the Mosaic covenant, "the second" referring to the will of God in inaugurating the new covenant (cf. Heb 10:10).

The term "new covenant" is found in abundance (Jer 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:13; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24). If it is "new", that distinction is in relation to something old(er) than itself. And not just older, but "becoming obsolete and ... ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13 -- the language of the letter suggests that it was written before AD 70, when the Temple was still standing).

Finally, the terms are found in early Church Father literature. Here is a list of some of the earliest occurrences I have found in Schaff's "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Vol I.

• St. Justin Martyr
• Dialog with Trypho, XI: "new covenant"
• Dialog with Trypho, LI: "New Testament"
• Dialog with Trypho, LXVII: "old covenant", "new covenant"
• Dialog with Trypho, CXXII: "new covenant"
• St. Ignatius
• Epistle to the Philadelphians, IX: "the Gospel possesses something transcendent" with gloss: "[above the former dispensation]"
• St. Irenaeus
• Against Heresies, Book III, XII, nn. 5, 11, 14: "new covenant"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, IX, nn. 1, 3: "new covenant"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XI, n. 3: "Old Testament"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XV, n. 2: "Old Testament", "New Testament"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XVII, nn. 1,5: "new covenant", "New Testament"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XXVIII, n. 2: "New Testament"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XXXIII, n. 14: "new covenant"
• Against Heresies, Book IV, XXXIV, nn. 2-4: "new covenant"
• Against Heresies, Book V, XXXIV, n. 1: "New Testament", "Old Testament"
• Fragments, XXXVII: "new covenant"

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a document (with preface signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) entitled "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible". (The term "Christian Bible" in this document means the whole Bible.) One section in particular has attracted attention amid the recent displeasure over the Good Friday prayer for the Jews found in the 1962 rite.

22. The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to show proper respect for its Jewish origins?

In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.

On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.

At times, this section ignores the fact that the Christian reading of Scripture is the correct Jewish reading of Scripture. The whole Bible is the Christian Bible; the first part is the Jewish Bible and has been duly inherited by Christians because of their patronage through the Apostles and Jesus Christ, Jews all! We cannot call the Old Testament worthless, although we can call the old Mosaic covenant defunct, since it has been surpassed by the new covenant in Jesus Christ. As Jesus and his Apostles proved, the Jewish Scriptures can be read from a Jewish point of view and testify to the new covenant. It requires a veil to be lifted, however, and for that, I will pray.