Judaism and Christian Theology by David Novak
Commentary Magazine, 2002
While pleased with Jon D. Levenson's designation of us as " four highly-regarded professors of Je... more While pleased with Jon D. Levenson's designation of us as " four highly-regarded professors of Jewish studies " [ " How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue, " December 2001], we are dismayed by his wholesale dismissal of our efforts in writing and publishing Dabru Emet, a dismissal epitomized by his closing charge that our efforts pose " hazards to Jewish practice and identity " and that to deny this (as we have explicitly done) is " whistling in the dark. " Truth be told, Mr. Levenson was invited to sign our statement, and we respect his decision not to do so based on his theological disagreement with us. But we do not respect, indeed we protest, his contemptuous dismissal of our project through sarcasm and unjust condemnation of our very motives, which seem to us examples of his bad faith as a fellow Jewish thinker. Presented as a newspaper ad, Dabru Emet is a political statement, offered to arouse attention and to provide the minimal common ground needed for any serious discussion. We find it bizarre that a serious scholar like Mr. Levenson would base his criticisms on such a statement alone, totally ignoring the book we published, Christianity in Jewish Terms (Westview), for just the kind of scholarly review he purports to offer. Most of Mr. Levenson's specific criticisms are answered in that book. Although we are prepared to add new answers to his old questions in subsequent publications and forums, we can only do so in an atmosphere of good faith, one that we expect in Jewish-Christian dialogue and all the more so in intra-Jewish dialogue. Aside from the considerations of space, we cannot do so here and now with Mr. Levenson in his present state of mind. We expect better from our fellow Jewish interlocutors, especially from those whose disagreement is truly interrogatory and not an exercise in invective.
Papers by David Novak
The question of same-sex marriage concerns every morally sensitive citizen. It has been the subje... more The question of same-sex marriage concerns every morally sensitive citizen. It has been the subject of debate everywhere, especially among scholars and intellectuals. That is why, no doubt, the Brennan Center for Justice invited me to comment on Professor Martha Nussbaum's Essay entitled-A Right To Marry?‖ 1 Our opposing views on this hotly debated question are well known. In fact, we have debated this question several times before. 2 I will begin this discussion by emphasizing a point of agreement between Professor Nussbaum and myself before getting to our points of disagreement. Indeed, indicating that point of agreement between us might lead to a clearer discussion of the points on which we disagree. In my conclusion, I will indicate another probable point of agreement between us, one that presently lies on the political horizon. It is clear that Professor Nussbaum is dissatisfied with the present state of the institution of marriage in our secular society and its polity. I join her in that dissatisfaction. Therefore, I shall not defend the status quo ante by simply invoking stare decisis against her call for change, since I am also in favor of change. Instead, we differ over what sort of change each of us wants. Professor Nussbaum draws upon precedents that seem to be already changing the legal definition of marriage from a union of a man and woman into the union of two persons, irrespective of their sex. Conversely, I want to change or undo those very precedents that have led to a situation where what might be called-the
is published by Princeton University Press and copyrighted, © 2005, by Princeton University Press... more is published by Princeton University Press and copyrighted, © 2005, by Princeton University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web. Users are not permitted to mount this file on any network servers.
Pardès, 2003
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour In Press. © In Press. Tous droits réservés pour tous pa... more Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour In Press. © In Press. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
Touro Law Review, 2013
According to my reading of his stimulating paper,-Divided Loyalties: The Problem of ‗Dual Soverei... more According to my reading of his stimulating paper,-Divided Loyalties: The Problem of ‗Dual Sovereignty' and Constitutional Faith,‖ Professor Sanford Levinson is dealing with two different kinds of-divided loyalties.‖ The first divided loyalty he deals with is when the positive law sanctioned by the constitution of a polity, such as that of the United States, is in conflict with more universally existent (or more universally conceived) justice. The second divided loyalty he deals with is when religious norms specifically conflict with the norms of a secular state. These two kinds of divided loyalties could be seen as involving two essentially different philosophical conflicts; but they could also be seen as involving the same essential conflict, namely, the conflict between loyalty to God-made law and loyalty to human-made law. This second option, though, would require taking the category God-made law to have two related subsets. The first subset would be God-made law (what Professor Levinson calls-religious norms‖), which surely means norms of a particular religious tradition, like Judaism, which is revealed to certain people: the Jews, on a certain occasion (shortly after the exodus from Egypt), at a certain place (Mount Sinai), written down in a certain book (the Torah), then transmitted and developed by a certain tradition (what Jews call masoret). The second subset would be God-made law that is generally revealed to every rational human being through practical or moral reason, and which applies to everybody, everywhere. That is what the Talmud calls laws that, had they not been revealed, humans by
Sacred Heart University Review, 2010
Jews, Christian, and Human Rights Dr. Cernera, Rabbi Ehrenkranz, Dr. Coppola, ladies and gentleme... more Jews, Christian, and Human Rights Dr. Cernera, Rabbi Ehrenkranz, Dr. Coppola, ladies and gentlemen: it is a great pleasure to be here at Sacred Heart University. I have never been here before, but I did contribute to a volume published several years ago by the Sacred Heart University Press in honor of John Cardinal O'Connor of New York, and so I feel I have some connection with Sacred Heart, and I was very honored to be invited to speak to you this evening. In his introduction Dr. Coppola referred to me, I guess euphemistically, as a prophet. I would tell him that my mother did not even want me to be a rabbi and certainly not a prophet. However, the Talmud says that even when the children of Israel are not prophets, they are the children of prophets. So I am happy to be known as a child of a prophet. This evening I will speak to the topic of Jews, Christians, and human rights. I want to put it in a historical perspective. It is always important, whenever one discusses an issue, to understand exactly where we are located in time and the events that have led us up to the present. It is quite clear that the positive relationship between Jews and Christians ─ and Catholics, in particular ─ really began around 1963 with Nostra Aetate, the statement from Vatican II, In Our Time. As a rabbinical student at that time, I was deeply involved with a great Jewish scholar who was very much a part of the discussion that produced this statement on the Jews. This document changed the whole lay of the land in terms of relations between Jews and Christians, especially Jews and Catholics. If it had not been for Vatican II, there would be no such Center for Christian-Jewish _______________ David Novak holds the J.
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
Uploads
Judaism and Christian Theology by David Novak
Papers by David Novak