Professor of Jewish Studies, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies & Associate Director, Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations, Saint Joseph's University (Philadelphia, PA) Address: https://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-staff/adam-gregerman-phd
In Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations, 2024
The land of Israel (including the city of Jerusalem) is of great importance to the history and th... more The land of Israel (including the city of Jerusalem) is of great importance to the history and theology of both Jews and Christians and especially to the relationship between the two traditions. It can be simultaneously an actual place and a symbolic ideal, and even both at once, for it is intimately related to the ways members of these communities define themselves vis-à-vis God, the biblical tradition and covenant(s), and each other. Especially for some, but not all, Jews in the wake of the Shoah and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, self-rule and residence there are the realization of divine promises and essential requirements for survival and prosperity. Christian tradition is more multifaceted and ambivalent. In different periods, Christians revered the land where Jesus walked, incorporated it into polemics against Jews, or even ignored it. Today, there are few areas of overlap between Christians and Jews in either the practical implications of life in the land or the symbolism assigned to it. Nonetheless, the topic of the land of Israel has long featured prominently in Jewish-Christian relations, reflecting shared scripture and shared history. The Hebrew Bible The centrality of the land of Israel in the Hebrew Bible cannot be overstated. It is one of the defining loci of the covenantal interrelationship between the God of Israel, the people of Israel, and the land of Israel. Along with a concomitant focus on the holy city of Jerusalem, the biblical narrative establishes entry into and possession of the land as key promises and supreme goals (Gen 12:1; Ex 3:8). Obedience to God's commandments is necessary to prosper in the land (Deut 4:1-14), and disobedienceespecially idolatry and moral and sexual transgressions-results in ejection from the land (Lev 18:24-30; Ezek 39:23-29; 2 Chr 36:15-16). The return of the people to the land in the future (Isa 43:1-21) or at the end of days (Zech 10:6-12) constitutes the triumph of God. Themes of return of the Israelites / Jews to the land and its rebuilding dominate the later parts of the biblical narrative (e.g., Ezra and Nehemiah). These themes will recur among post-biblical Jews and Christians as both try to explain later Jewish exile from and residence in the land. The Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods In the Second Temple Period, Jewish life in the land continued, usually under foreign rule (Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Roman) and with an ongoing focus on Temple worship. Simultaneously, the Jewish diaspora, with roots in the Babylonian exile, expanded in the Hellenistic period and continued to grow in surrounding regions for centuries. Contrary to both ancient (bGit 56a-57a; Justin, Dialogue 52) and modern perceptions, the land was not emptied of Jews following two devastating wars against Rome in 66-70 CE and 132-35 CE. Many remained in the land, often in the northern region (the Galilee). Among them were early rabbis, who, according to tradition, founded academies in Yavneh and Usha, reinstituted the Sanhedrin (bRH 31a-b), and assumed positions of religious and political leadership (bSan 36b; bGit 59a on Judah ha-Nasi). The Mishnah was completed around 200 CE, and the Jerusalem Talmud was completed around 400 CE. (It has a somewhat unfinished character, perhaps because Christianity was becoming more powerful and Jewish life was becoming less stable.) Despite biblical and historical attachments to the land, starting in the common era a desire to live in the land was, for different reasons, limited among Jews and Christians alike. Their reasons differ. Christians' views were shaped by both historical and theological trends (see below). Jewish communities in the diaspora often thrived. Some might have felt constrained by a vague rabbinic tradition of the "three oaths" imposed on them by God. They discouraged Jews from moving en masse to the land prior to the messianic period as well as rebelling against Gentile rulers and theoretically mandated that Gentile rulers not oppress Israel too much (bKet 111a). Rabbis, with their focus on lived piety in the study-house, home, and synagogue, adapted Jewish practices so that one need not live in the land or attend the (now vanished) Temple. This did not preclude an ongoing attachment to the land and a hope for a renewal of Jewish life there, even among those in the diaspora. For example, the Amidah prayer (ca. 1 st-2 nd cent. CE) asks God to return the Jews to the land: "Gather us from the four corners of the earth … Rebuild Jerusalem." Some diaspora Jews even sought to be buried in the land. Since antiquity some Jews have remained in the land, in sizable numbers during the first half of the first millennia CE (especially in the North) and then subsequently mostly in small communities in the historic cities such as Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Tiberias. A few medieval Jewish luminaries visited or settled in the land (e.g., Maimonides, Nachmanides, perhaps Judah ha-Levi). New Testament In the New Testament, the land of Israel was the site of events from Jesus' life and the early Church. Jesus was from Galilee in the northern region and traveled south to Judea (and Jerusalem), preaching in villages in both regions. In Matthew he explicitly restricts his and his disciples' activities to those areas (10:5; 15:24). His proclamation of God's reign included the imminent reversal of present injustice in the world, including the blessing of possession of the land (gē) of Israel by the meek, the powerless, and the dispossessed (Mt 5:5; cf. Ps 37:11, 27). Jerusalem was the "city of the great King" (Mt 5:35) and the holy city (Jn 4:20), its Temple a sacred site for worship and pilgrimage as well as a place Jesus spent time teaching (Mk 14:49; Lk 21:37).
This paper presents the results of a quantitative study of American Catholic Attitudes toward Jew... more This paper presents the results of a quantitative study of American Catholic Attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, as well as comparisons with a similar study of Evangelical Attitudes.
Co-authored with Philip A. Cunningham, Motti Inbari, and Kirill Bumin
In Confrontation to Covenantal Partnership: Jews and Christians Reflect on the Orthodox Rabbinic Statement “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven" edited by Joshua Ahrens, Irving Greenberg, and Eugene Korn, 2021
In Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations, 2019
Adam is the Hebrew word used for the prototypical human being created by God in the two creation ... more Adam is the Hebrew word used for the prototypical human being created by God in the two creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24). In the first account, it refers to the apparently androgynous creation made on the sixth day (1:26-27). In the second account, it means a male-gendered human, as is made explicit after the creation of a female-gendered human (e.g., 2:22). An explanation for the term appears in the second account, where it is connected with the word used for the earth (adama) that God shaped in order to fashion the first human body (2:7). Contrary to later usage in both the Bible and post-biblical literature, in the two accounts the word should not be read as a proper name but in a generic sense, either "the man" or "humans." Though the man gives names to the animals (2:19) and to his wife ("Eve" [3:20]), he is never explicitly named. Only after the creation narratives is there a suggestion that Adam may be his proper name (e.g., 4:25), though it may also retain a generic sense, as in the genealogy that starts with the first human generation (5:1-2; compare 5:3, where it is juxtaposed to other proper names). Adam, along with the woman Eve, are archetypal beings from whom all humans are descended. Though later biblical texts seldom refer explicitly to Adam and to the creation narratives, his nature and his actions serve to define the qualities of humanity in the Hebrew Bible. His mortality (Gen 3:19; cf. Eccl 12:7), likeness to God (Gen 1:26; cf. Gen 9:6), status at the climax of creation (Gen 1:31; cf. Ps 8:7), worldly dominion (Gen 1:28; cf. Gen 9:2), and moral nature (Gen 3:17) are among the distinctive human qualities first attributed to him. Likewise, his and Eve's experiences are etiological. The need to work to survive, the shame of nakedness, and women's pain in childbirth are among the divine consequences that they face for eating of the forbidden tree and that serve as precedents for later human's universal experiences. Outside the two creation narratives in Genesis, the person Adam appears only rarely in the Hebrew Bible. In just a few cases, the word Adam is connected to the specific human in Genesis, for example, when he is identified as the first of the human race (e.g., Job 15:7; 1 Chr 1:1). Much more often, the word adam, in a generic sense, is used for an individual male, sometimes with the prefix "son of" (e.g., Ps 8:5; Ezek 2:1 and often in Ezek).
Claim #3, on the land and State of Israel, has pride of place in Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement o... more Claim #3, on the land and State of Israel, has pride of place in Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity. It appears immediately after the first two claims on God and the authority of the Bible and even before a claim on the moral principles of the Torah. Although one might question the ordering of these topics on theological grounds, the authors appear to have correctly anticipated what would be the most contentious issue in Jewish-Christian relations over the next few decades. Statements and actions (e.g., by mainline Protestant churches, Jewish groups, and various national governments) have engendered mistrust between
This article studies the various ways that Catholics have interpreted the biblical promise of the... more This article studies the various ways that Catholics have interpreted the biblical promise of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants after Nostra Aetate, which affirmed the continuing legitimacy of the Jewish covenant containing this promise. Specifically, it analyzes the range of views regarding the religious significance of the land promise in Catholic statements on Jews and Judaism. These official Vatican statements affirm the covenant in general but decline to offer any theological legitimacy to this particular aspect of it. I argue that their perspective on the covenant is circumscribed and self-referential. By contrast, other statements, despite beginning with nearly identical texts (both biblical and Catholic) and theological assumptions, not only affirm the covenant generically but insist that the land promise is itself an integral and legitimate part of the covenant.
Nostra Aetate initiated a revolutionary shift in Catholic theology, opposing supersessionism and ... more Nostra Aetate initiated a revolutionary shift in Catholic theology, opposing supersessionism and affirming that Jews remain in a salvific covenantal relationship with God. However, this shift raises for Catholics a deep tension regarding the value of this "Old Covenant" vis-à-vis the "New Covenant," as this article illustrates using the statements of Walter Kasper and The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable. While speaking positively about the Old Covenant, both deem it essential to maintain the superiority of the New Covenant as universalistic, fulfilling the promises in the Old Covenant and transcending its limitations. The author demonstrates how they seek to reduce this tension by characterizing the two covenants as good and better covenants, rather than as bad and good covenants, thereby avoiding a lapse into supersessionism.
In The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, 427–31. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018
This article studies four major Protestant Christian statements on the State of Israel, from the ... more This article studies four major Protestant Christian statements on the State of Israel, from the Presbyterian Church (USA) (1987, 2012) and the Church of Scotland (2003, 2013). While they initially advocate a secular, non-theologized view of Israel, they then paradoxically assessand often critiqueit using Scriptural texts and Christian theological concepts. These assessments are analysed using Jeremy Cohen's model of the 'hermeneutical Jew' , which describes a pre-modern Christian construction of the Jew as possessing Scripture but reading it incorrectly (e.g. too literally, particularistically). It is argued that the model applies to these modern Christian statements which view Israel as a hermeneutical Jew. They cast Israel as a corporate religious entity by which the Jewish people might fulfil their religious obligations, but criticize it for failing to properly interpret and apply Scripture in its policies. The article then critiques the appropriateness and accuracy of their viewing Israel as a hermeneutical Jew.
In Ambiguities, Complexities, and Half-Forgotten Adversaries: Crossing Boundaries in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Kimberly Stratton and Andrea Lieber, 344-59. Leiden: Brill, 2016
W hile formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge 1 have waned in Jewish-Christian r... more W hile formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge 1 have waned in Jewish-Christian relations, disputes over the land and State of Israel provoke intense controversy and disagreement. Decades ago, in the Christian world, this topic was already widely said to be especially divisive, and today, it remains so. 2 It is not surprising that an issue that provokes intense geopolitical interest and touches on territory of nearly unsurpassed religious significance would be so provocative. The nexus of politics and religion is especially volatile. Among Christians, church organizations and individual theologians in the west (North America, Europe) join diverse religious claims and biblical interpretations to their foreign policy statements and arguments. Sometimes, it seems that the political views trump the religious. For example, Christian disputes over the State of Israel often can be mapped onto existing deep divisions in the American churches over domestic policies or military action, with left and right presenting predictable arguments. It is understandably tempting to see appeals to Scripture and theology as tools to buttress preexisting political views.
In Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations, 2024
The land of Israel (including the city of Jerusalem) is of great importance to the history and th... more The land of Israel (including the city of Jerusalem) is of great importance to the history and theology of both Jews and Christians and especially to the relationship between the two traditions. It can be simultaneously an actual place and a symbolic ideal, and even both at once, for it is intimately related to the ways members of these communities define themselves vis-à-vis God, the biblical tradition and covenant(s), and each other. Especially for some, but not all, Jews in the wake of the Shoah and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, self-rule and residence there are the realization of divine promises and essential requirements for survival and prosperity. Christian tradition is more multifaceted and ambivalent. In different periods, Christians revered the land where Jesus walked, incorporated it into polemics against Jews, or even ignored it. Today, there are few areas of overlap between Christians and Jews in either the practical implications of life in the land or the symbolism assigned to it. Nonetheless, the topic of the land of Israel has long featured prominently in Jewish-Christian relations, reflecting shared scripture and shared history. The Hebrew Bible The centrality of the land of Israel in the Hebrew Bible cannot be overstated. It is one of the defining loci of the covenantal interrelationship between the God of Israel, the people of Israel, and the land of Israel. Along with a concomitant focus on the holy city of Jerusalem, the biblical narrative establishes entry into and possession of the land as key promises and supreme goals (Gen 12:1; Ex 3:8). Obedience to God's commandments is necessary to prosper in the land (Deut 4:1-14), and disobedienceespecially idolatry and moral and sexual transgressions-results in ejection from the land (Lev 18:24-30; Ezek 39:23-29; 2 Chr 36:15-16). The return of the people to the land in the future (Isa 43:1-21) or at the end of days (Zech 10:6-12) constitutes the triumph of God. Themes of return of the Israelites / Jews to the land and its rebuilding dominate the later parts of the biblical narrative (e.g., Ezra and Nehemiah). These themes will recur among post-biblical Jews and Christians as both try to explain later Jewish exile from and residence in the land. The Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods In the Second Temple Period, Jewish life in the land continued, usually under foreign rule (Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Roman) and with an ongoing focus on Temple worship. Simultaneously, the Jewish diaspora, with roots in the Babylonian exile, expanded in the Hellenistic period and continued to grow in surrounding regions for centuries. Contrary to both ancient (bGit 56a-57a; Justin, Dialogue 52) and modern perceptions, the land was not emptied of Jews following two devastating wars against Rome in 66-70 CE and 132-35 CE. Many remained in the land, often in the northern region (the Galilee). Among them were early rabbis, who, according to tradition, founded academies in Yavneh and Usha, reinstituted the Sanhedrin (bRH 31a-b), and assumed positions of religious and political leadership (bSan 36b; bGit 59a on Judah ha-Nasi). The Mishnah was completed around 200 CE, and the Jerusalem Talmud was completed around 400 CE. (It has a somewhat unfinished character, perhaps because Christianity was becoming more powerful and Jewish life was becoming less stable.) Despite biblical and historical attachments to the land, starting in the common era a desire to live in the land was, for different reasons, limited among Jews and Christians alike. Their reasons differ. Christians' views were shaped by both historical and theological trends (see below). Jewish communities in the diaspora often thrived. Some might have felt constrained by a vague rabbinic tradition of the "three oaths" imposed on them by God. They discouraged Jews from moving en masse to the land prior to the messianic period as well as rebelling against Gentile rulers and theoretically mandated that Gentile rulers not oppress Israel too much (bKet 111a). Rabbis, with their focus on lived piety in the study-house, home, and synagogue, adapted Jewish practices so that one need not live in the land or attend the (now vanished) Temple. This did not preclude an ongoing attachment to the land and a hope for a renewal of Jewish life there, even among those in the diaspora. For example, the Amidah prayer (ca. 1 st-2 nd cent. CE) asks God to return the Jews to the land: "Gather us from the four corners of the earth … Rebuild Jerusalem." Some diaspora Jews even sought to be buried in the land. Since antiquity some Jews have remained in the land, in sizable numbers during the first half of the first millennia CE (especially in the North) and then subsequently mostly in small communities in the historic cities such as Jerusalem, Hebron, Tzfat, and Tiberias. A few medieval Jewish luminaries visited or settled in the land (e.g., Maimonides, Nachmanides, perhaps Judah ha-Levi). New Testament In the New Testament, the land of Israel was the site of events from Jesus' life and the early Church. Jesus was from Galilee in the northern region and traveled south to Judea (and Jerusalem), preaching in villages in both regions. In Matthew he explicitly restricts his and his disciples' activities to those areas (10:5; 15:24). His proclamation of God's reign included the imminent reversal of present injustice in the world, including the blessing of possession of the land (gē) of Israel by the meek, the powerless, and the dispossessed (Mt 5:5; cf. Ps 37:11, 27). Jerusalem was the "city of the great King" (Mt 5:35) and the holy city (Jn 4:20), its Temple a sacred site for worship and pilgrimage as well as a place Jesus spent time teaching (Mk 14:49; Lk 21:37).
This paper presents the results of a quantitative study of American Catholic Attitudes toward Jew... more This paper presents the results of a quantitative study of American Catholic Attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, as well as comparisons with a similar study of Evangelical Attitudes.
Co-authored with Philip A. Cunningham, Motti Inbari, and Kirill Bumin
In Confrontation to Covenantal Partnership: Jews and Christians Reflect on the Orthodox Rabbinic Statement “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven" edited by Joshua Ahrens, Irving Greenberg, and Eugene Korn, 2021
In Encyclopedia of Jewish-Christian Relations, 2019
Adam is the Hebrew word used for the prototypical human being created by God in the two creation ... more Adam is the Hebrew word used for the prototypical human being created by God in the two creation accounts in Genesis (1:1-2:4a and 2:4b-3:24). In the first account, it refers to the apparently androgynous creation made on the sixth day (1:26-27). In the second account, it means a male-gendered human, as is made explicit after the creation of a female-gendered human (e.g., 2:22). An explanation for the term appears in the second account, where it is connected with the word used for the earth (adama) that God shaped in order to fashion the first human body (2:7). Contrary to later usage in both the Bible and post-biblical literature, in the two accounts the word should not be read as a proper name but in a generic sense, either "the man" or "humans." Though the man gives names to the animals (2:19) and to his wife ("Eve" [3:20]), he is never explicitly named. Only after the creation narratives is there a suggestion that Adam may be his proper name (e.g., 4:25), though it may also retain a generic sense, as in the genealogy that starts with the first human generation (5:1-2; compare 5:3, where it is juxtaposed to other proper names). Adam, along with the woman Eve, are archetypal beings from whom all humans are descended. Though later biblical texts seldom refer explicitly to Adam and to the creation narratives, his nature and his actions serve to define the qualities of humanity in the Hebrew Bible. His mortality (Gen 3:19; cf. Eccl 12:7), likeness to God (Gen 1:26; cf. Gen 9:6), status at the climax of creation (Gen 1:31; cf. Ps 8:7), worldly dominion (Gen 1:28; cf. Gen 9:2), and moral nature (Gen 3:17) are among the distinctive human qualities first attributed to him. Likewise, his and Eve's experiences are etiological. The need to work to survive, the shame of nakedness, and women's pain in childbirth are among the divine consequences that they face for eating of the forbidden tree and that serve as precedents for later human's universal experiences. Outside the two creation narratives in Genesis, the person Adam appears only rarely in the Hebrew Bible. In just a few cases, the word Adam is connected to the specific human in Genesis, for example, when he is identified as the first of the human race (e.g., Job 15:7; 1 Chr 1:1). Much more often, the word adam, in a generic sense, is used for an individual male, sometimes with the prefix "son of" (e.g., Ps 8:5; Ezek 2:1 and often in Ezek).
Claim #3, on the land and State of Israel, has pride of place in Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement o... more Claim #3, on the land and State of Israel, has pride of place in Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity. It appears immediately after the first two claims on God and the authority of the Bible and even before a claim on the moral principles of the Torah. Although one might question the ordering of these topics on theological grounds, the authors appear to have correctly anticipated what would be the most contentious issue in Jewish-Christian relations over the next few decades. Statements and actions (e.g., by mainline Protestant churches, Jewish groups, and various national governments) have engendered mistrust between
This article studies the various ways that Catholics have interpreted the biblical promise of the... more This article studies the various ways that Catholics have interpreted the biblical promise of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants after Nostra Aetate, which affirmed the continuing legitimacy of the Jewish covenant containing this promise. Specifically, it analyzes the range of views regarding the religious significance of the land promise in Catholic statements on Jews and Judaism. These official Vatican statements affirm the covenant in general but decline to offer any theological legitimacy to this particular aspect of it. I argue that their perspective on the covenant is circumscribed and self-referential. By contrast, other statements, despite beginning with nearly identical texts (both biblical and Catholic) and theological assumptions, not only affirm the covenant generically but insist that the land promise is itself an integral and legitimate part of the covenant.
Nostra Aetate initiated a revolutionary shift in Catholic theology, opposing supersessionism and ... more Nostra Aetate initiated a revolutionary shift in Catholic theology, opposing supersessionism and affirming that Jews remain in a salvific covenantal relationship with God. However, this shift raises for Catholics a deep tension regarding the value of this "Old Covenant" vis-à-vis the "New Covenant," as this article illustrates using the statements of Walter Kasper and The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable. While speaking positively about the Old Covenant, both deem it essential to maintain the superiority of the New Covenant as universalistic, fulfilling the promises in the Old Covenant and transcending its limitations. The author demonstrates how they seek to reduce this tension by characterizing the two covenants as good and better covenants, rather than as bad and good covenants, thereby avoiding a lapse into supersessionism.
In The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, 427–31. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018
This article studies four major Protestant Christian statements on the State of Israel, from the ... more This article studies four major Protestant Christian statements on the State of Israel, from the Presbyterian Church (USA) (1987, 2012) and the Church of Scotland (2003, 2013). While they initially advocate a secular, non-theologized view of Israel, they then paradoxically assessand often critiqueit using Scriptural texts and Christian theological concepts. These assessments are analysed using Jeremy Cohen's model of the 'hermeneutical Jew' , which describes a pre-modern Christian construction of the Jew as possessing Scripture but reading it incorrectly (e.g. too literally, particularistically). It is argued that the model applies to these modern Christian statements which view Israel as a hermeneutical Jew. They cast Israel as a corporate religious entity by which the Jewish people might fulfil their religious obligations, but criticize it for failing to properly interpret and apply Scripture in its policies. The article then critiques the appropriateness and accuracy of their viewing Israel as a hermeneutical Jew.
In Ambiguities, Complexities, and Half-Forgotten Adversaries: Crossing Boundaries in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Kimberly Stratton and Andrea Lieber, 344-59. Leiden: Brill, 2016
W hile formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge 1 have waned in Jewish-Christian r... more W hile formerly inflammatory topics such as the deicide charge 1 have waned in Jewish-Christian relations, disputes over the land and State of Israel provoke intense controversy and disagreement. Decades ago, in the Christian world, this topic was already widely said to be especially divisive, and today, it remains so. 2 It is not surprising that an issue that provokes intense geopolitical interest and touches on territory of nearly unsurpassed religious significance would be so provocative. The nexus of politics and religion is especially volatile. Among Christians, church organizations and individual theologians in the west (North America, Europe) join diverse religious claims and biblical interpretations to their foreign policy statements and arguments. Sometimes, it seems that the political views trump the religious. For example, Christian disputes over the State of Israel often can be mapped onto existing deep divisions in the American churches over domestic policies or military action, with left and right presenting predictable arguments. It is understandably tempting to see appeals to Scripture and theology as tools to buttress preexisting political views.
Uploads
Papers by Adam Gregerman
Co-authored with Philip A. Cunningham, Motti Inbari, and Kirill Bumin
Co-authored with Philip A. Cunningham, Motti Inbari, and Kirill Bumin