Zeal For Truth

In the study of religion, one of the most interesting things is the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. Even more interesting is the contemporary use of the term “Judeo-Christian.” In many ways, this is a “Christian” invention, possibly to justify its divergence from Judaism. To put this another way, the usage of the combined “Judeo-Christian” is more of a justification of the separation of Christianity from Judaism than its unity.
Within Christianity, it is too often assumed that the contemporary reading of the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”) is how whatever text/quote/verse in question was originally interpreted. For instance, Geza Vermes notes in his Jesus the Jew that the references in Daniel to the “son of Man” were euphemisms for the speaker during the second century BC(E), which is when many scholars believe the book was either written or expanded. It was only later (during the end of the first century AD/CE) that this began to be reinterpreted as a “prophecy,” no doubt influenced by the Essene community at Qumran and the emerging group we know today as “Christians.” While both of these groups were relatively radical compared to the other main groups in Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots), the early “mainstream” adopters (Rabbi Akiba for example) was criticized for this view in the Mishnah (written during the second century).
“Judeo-Christian” is, in many ways, a subtle way of changing history–especially when used by Christians. It presumes a chain of transmission, if you will, of the interpretation of the Bible that validates the later views. It can be seen by those who argue that people in the Old Testament were “saved” if they believed in a future Messiah. This type of thinking is very much Christian in nature and it ignores the this-worldly nature of Judaism. Now, this isn’t wrong or even bad. In fact, it is somehow expected of any hermeneutical adventure. What makes it different, however, is when the interpretation’s origin is questioned. The changed interpretation becomes more than just a new interpretation; it emerges as tradition and (eventually) as the only tradition. By invoking the term “Judeo-Christianity,” one can easily push aside a variant reading based not on any kind of textual evidence but rather on tradition. Does the text allow such reinterpretations? Sure. This isn’t because the text had some hidden meaning, but rather that the interpretation of it can change because the context in which the text is read changes. This is what makes Judeo-Christianity remarkably different from the other major religion in the West (Islam): a changing context. Islam requires a context that makes reinterpretation very difficult. It isn’t that the Qur’an itself can be interpreted in different ways (compare the Shia interpretations from Qum with the radical interpretations of al Qaeda and bin Laden) but that Islam itself includes an oral tradition in the hadith that provide a stable context for interpreting the Qur’an. To reinterpret the Qur’an, one must first either reject or reinterpret the oral tradition around the written text. Christianity and Judaism, on the other hand, do not. Since the collapse of the second Temple, Judeo-Christianity has been constantly evolving–both in theology and in hermeneutics, even though the text from which one reads hasn’t changed much (especially after the fourth century).
It’s easier to see this history in Judaism because there are numerous texts which show this tradition of reinterpretation: the Mishnah, the Midrash, the Talmud, the Zophar, etc. Each of these texts reinterprets earlier ones as a long running commentary that is considered vital to one’s understanding of the Hebrew Bible. In other words, for the Jew, it isn’t sufficient to simply know the text; one should also know the history of interpretation for that text if one is to be a good student of the Bible. In Christianity, especially American Evangelicalism, this is much less the case because Luther’s cry for sola Scriptura became a slogan for personal interpretation. When Scottish Common Sense Realism entered the scene in the 18th century, it became the standard for interpretation: what the translated text meant to someone reading it was its original meaning. There was no need for an oral tradition, a history of interpretation, or even prior interpretations: if one could see the “literal” reading of the text, any kind of commentary was secondary. Using the term “Judeo-Christian,” it becomes possible to remove earlier interpretations in order to give more justification for a new interpretation.