Judeo-Christian

[nancylebov]

There's a recent discussion of "Judeo-Christian" started by fjm, and I have a sufficiently different spin that I'm putting my reply here.

"Judeo-Christian" has both always gotten on my nerves and seemed like an effort at good will. I see it as a way of defanging the worst sorts of anti-semitism-- the kind that presents Jews as malign aliens. This is something I really want defanged, and it isn't completely dead yet.

My usual reaction has been to say "I prefer 'Jewish and Christian' instead", which at least both respected my pretty mild annoyance and my desire not to swat down an effort at good will on an important matter.

There's obviously a fair amount going on behind that phrase, and at this point I'm curious-- if you're a Christian and use "Judeo-Christian" or used to use it, what do you think it means? What do you think other Christians think it means? Do you think Jews and Christians have things in common which aren't shared by other groups?

Anonymous commenting is permitted, but if you comment anonymously, please use a name or nickname so that I can tell you from other anonymous commenters.

Comments

[jsburbidge.livejournal.com]

I use "Judaeo-Christian" if and only if referring to elements which show continuity through the first few centuries of the common era and are shared by the whole spectrum from post-Ezra Judaism through the Gentile Christianity of the first few centuries CE and post-Tannaitic Judaism. Thus it might refer to liturgical elements carried over from Synagogue to general Christian use, or to views which distinguished both groups from their pagan surroundings. There certainly are such elements (see work by Neusner, for example) and it seems to me to be meaningful to discuss them using a single label.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

This is my general understanding of the term, too. Thanks for expressing it so clearly.

[aliettedb.livejournal.com]

Well, Farah mentioned it, but I think it's a primarily American use: I'm Roman Catholic and French, went to a private Catholic school, and never heard anyone use it. Catechism lessons focused a lot on Israel, and what being a Jew meant, both now and in the time of Christ (and the Israel/Palestine issues), even though it was within a context of saying the New Testament had supplanted the Old, and that any conflict between those had to be solved by looking in the Gospels, not the "obsolete" books like Leviticus... (which is why I'm also always puzzled when people refer to anything within the first five books of the Bible to define marriage, as I was taught they're out of date on the subject).

(if I were to group Catholicism with some other religion beyond Christianity--which is already a tricky business, as certain articles of faith differ radically between Catholicism and, say, Puritanism--I'd go for Abrahamic, which regroups Jews, Christians and Muslims under the same banner).

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I went to a talk on that subject once; here's my notes from it.

[sodyera.livejournal.com]

How about "A Person"?

[sodyera.livejournal.com]

Additionally, the Babylon 5 episode comes to mind where the religious customs of the various member worlds are demonstrated. At the end Sheridan introduces a line of human beings, beginning with, "This is (so and so), he's an Atheist. This is a Buddhist..."

[inquisitiveravn.livejournal.com]

That was the first season episode "Parliament of Dreams" and the station CO at the time was Jeffrey Sinclair, not Sheridan who came in at the beginning of the second season.

[sodyera.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

I've never heard a person described as Judeo-Christian, only culture or ideas or religion. It would really weird me out to hear a person so described.

There are some believers in a syncretistic form of Christianity with Jewish overtones (or Judaism without converting?) who call themselves Hebrew Christians or Jews for Jesus and a couple of other things.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

The corner of Manhattan nearest the building I work in is a fave hangout of a group that seems to be something Judeo-Christian and African American. They definitely say that Jesus was Black, and there's some chart (on a poster they display) about the tribes of Israel. They're all men, and they dress in handmade clothing that kind of blends a dashiki with biblical robes. I'm always too much in a hurry to talk to them; I should at least listen one day.

Anyway, I'm not sure they'd use the term J-C, but they do seem to fit it in a lot of ways.

[madfilkentist]

I'm a person, and I'm neither Jewish nor Christian.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

"Abrahamic" drives me bananas, and probably doesn't capture the gamut of current Christian cults. It bothers me for reasons related to what alletedb said about supposed superceding of earlier doctrine by later, and because, AIUI from my outsider's perspective, Christianity is supposed to be a creed separate from ethnicity, so I don't understand why Abraham should be so very important to it all, especially since Mohammed is the Seal of Prophets. Judeo-Christian seems like a useful inclusive label for ideas that are common to Jews and Christians, but I contend that you could also use "biblical" or "scriptural" for a lot of cases.

But I'm an atheist, so I probably shouldn't be replying here anyway.

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

"so I don't understand why Abraham should be so very important to it all, especially since Mohammed is the Seal of Prophets."

Mohammed is that *in Islam* -- in Christianity and Judaism he's nothing, or less than nothing.
Abraham on the other hand is revered by all three faith groupings: Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

So there's an easy answer to your question.

"Judeo-Christian seems like a useful inclusive label for ideas that are common to Jews and Christians, but I contend that you could also use "biblical" or "scriptural" for a lot of cases."

'biblical' and 'scriptural' don't work, because they're a reference to particular written works, not to the faiths, traditions or cultures in questions.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

I wrote my comment in a hurry, so it probably has too many elisions to make sense to anyone but me - sorry about that. Sure, Mohammed's not doctrinally important to Judaism or Christianity. But.

If you go with Abrahamic you have to consider Islam. However, I don't think Abraham's a very good fulcrum to pick if you want to talk about commonalities between "the big three." what I meant to say was more like "I don't understand why Abraham should be taken to be the common thread that ties Judaism, Christianity and Islam together, especially since there are Christian sects that don't consider Abraham to be very important and in Islam any teachings of Abraham were explicitly superseded by those of Mohammed, since for Moslems he is the Seal of Prophets, the last, most important and irreplaceable guide." So Abraham's present in all three, but picking on him is a bit like addressing cars, trucks and buses as "vehicles that are commonly painted." It's true, but it's not exhaustive and may not be salient.

Obviously you could not simply replace "Judeo-Christian" with "Biblical" or "scriptural" in all sentences in which it appears. Where you're dealing with points of doctrine you might get away with it, though, with an admitted change in meaning and need for greater precision, which might itself be desirable. If you're describing "faiths, traditions or cultures" as "Judeo-Christian" then you're probably not talking very precisely anyway.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

"Abrahamic" doesn't bother me-- I take it as a neutral way of referring to three historically related religions.

I assume Abraham was referenced because of his historic connection to the religions, not as a matter of physical ancestry.

I probably should have been clearer-- I'm especially interested in replies from Christians, but I didn't mean to exclude replies from non-Christians.

Judaism's relationship to ethnicity is complex-- it's possible to be Jewish ethnically without believing in the religion, and it's possible for anyone to convert to Judaism.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

Using genetic metaphors to talk about relations between religions bothers me - in some ways there obviously are strands of credo that can be traced back in a line of succession (although often changed in important ways), in other ways each one is an original creation couched in familiar language to help with poaching existing worshippers, and each is also related to other ideas and religious and ethnic identities that were kicking around at the time. Pulling on the Abraham strand encourages a certain perspective and discourages others (and it might be interesting to see if other religions would come into play if you picked a different early Biblical figure).

Take Manichaeism, for instance: it's Abrahamic (Mani claimed a place in the succession of prophets after Abraham), but it also draws significantly from Zoroastrianism, which we call "not Abrahamic," even though it was around for a long time "right next door," its adherents intermixed with the Abrahamics, and it clearly had a lot of influence. Zoroastrian texts just neglect to mention Abraham. Mormonism, Baha'i, Rastafarianism (which stresses physical ancestry) and Islam are all Abrahamic essentially because they say they are, but the edge case is Unitarian Universalism, which respects the teachings of Abraham even if its adherents make up their own individual minds about whether to include a god.

But in the end this is all nerdrage on my part (don't even get me started on the concept of ethnicity), what matters is who people feel they are, who they gather together with, and what they do on that basis. None of it has to stand up to any particular set of made up "rational standards."

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Interesting-- I've taken the idea that trees give a false idea about the stability of ecologies to the notion that named religions give a false idea of the stability of the religions, but I didn't think how that would apply to the usual geneologies of religions.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm being frustratingly obtuse: obviously I disagree with you that Abrahamic just means "historically related:" Zoroastrianism is historically related but it's not Abrahamic. When I say "genetic metaphors," I'm talking about the succession of prophets that both Jesus and Mohammed are taken to be part of by their respective flocks, and the perspective that stresses how Christianity "grew out of" Judaism and Islam "grew out of" both Christianity and Judaism. I take Abrahamic to be a reference to all of this.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I used to defend the term because there are commonalities between the religions that seemed hard to describe any other way. Now I use more precise phrases such as "Hebraic influences on Christianity," "Biblical," "monotheism," "from the psalms," and so on.

I agree that socially the term is friendly but appropriative and perhaps condescending, in that whether the speaker shares the assumption or not, the term plays into the idea that Christianity supersedes Judaism. (I never thought of it that way; for instance, in "socio-cultural," I see both as vital and the concept about the overlap.)

Ehrman's books of historical Biblical scholarship, which I reviewed recently, covers some of the same matters as the talk lethargic_man gives notes on, but in more detail and not to a specific Jewish audience--that is, not so much "Christian treatment of these Jewish elements twists them" as much as different sets of textual interpretation, even various within each faith, as in each faith's interpretations closer to the time of writing vs. now. In fact, he concentrates on all the various viewpoints even in one "testament," exploring how the fractures rub up against one another in interesting ways.

So yes, I think there are definite commonalities between the two religions, although Christians often re-interpreted the Hebrew bible to justify being Jewish and believing Jesus is the Messiah, or to establish a history. I honestly don't know what aspects Judaism and Christianity share that Islam does not, or any pair within the three except in the most superficial sense (no pork in Judaism and Islam).

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It never occurred to me that "Judeo-Christian" could be taken to mean that Christianity has superseded Judaism. I still can't see how that idea can be derived directly from the phrase, and I'm not bad at deducting meanings from context. This is not intended to deny that people could frequently mean that, just that it doesn't seem inherent in the phrase.

On the other hand, there are a lot of Christians who apparently have "superseded by Christianity" automatically appended to any thought of Judaism. Maybe that's the connection.

[birdhousefrog.livejournal.com]

I'm American and while I have a Protestant Christian background with several ordained ministers and church historians in my family tree, I'm more of a Theist or Universalist, myself.

I use the term to refer to the American Protestant parts of the Bible that overlap in both faiths, something that seems rather unique. This is, as Aliette said, not necessarily true in Catholicism, which has a different version of the Bible from (most) American Protestant, though not hugely different and a different emphasis than most American Protestant churches. Many American Protestant churches do look to the Old Testament for inspiration and give it equal weight with the New Testament as the Word of God.

So I would agree that it's probably an American term and even then might be limited to particular sects of American Christianity and have little to do with Judaism.

You did ask for a personal interpretation of the term and that's all this is.

Oz

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

That's all I wanted. Thank you.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I heard the phrase during my university years, usually delineating cultural themes and attitudes shared by both religious traditions (stemming from what the Christians call the Old Testament, and the Bible, or Torah, for the Jews). I've tried not to use it in recent decades as it's inexact--there are better terms for whatever cultural issue one is discussing--but no one had told me it was offensive. Glad to learn that, and will try to excise it more consciously.

not quite right

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

The Torah -- literally, "instruction" or "teaching" -- comprises specifically the first five books, called in English Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.* What Christians call the Old Testament, we call "Tanakh" in Hebrew -- an acronym for its three divisions, Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). In English it's often called the Hebrew Bible. I don't call it the "Old Testament" for the same reason that I don't refer to the woman I met 43 years ago today as my "first wife" :-). [I've been waiting years for an opportunity to use that line; the timing is incredibly great.]

* "Torah" is also used more broadly to refer to
1. the entire Hebrew Bible -- this is the sense you were thinking of -- or
2. even more broadly to the entire corpus of Jewish law. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Written_Law.html .

Re: not quite right

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the correction.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I've mostly taken to using "the Abrahamic religions," which includes Islam, since most things in common between Judaism and Christianity are also common with Islam.

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

I liked the post you linked. I think there is a certain way that you're right and she's right ("You're both right!") "Judeo-Christian" is often used as an effort at goodwill, as you say, and generally, when it is, it elides the whole existence of rabbinic Judaism. I never want to step on the "yay, we share values and have things in common!" part, even though I don't want to be erased by the whole Borg-you-will-be-assimilated part.

But I am a Jew so there you go.

I think in some ways it would be nice to acknowledge the shared values of various groups by calling them out as shared cultural values, not Judeo-Christian culture.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

One test of elision, I'd think, is whether people who talk about Judeo-Christian thought also ever talk about Jewish thought on its own. A lot of the public faces of the religious right, for instance, talk a lot about Christianity and Judeo-Christian values, but rarely about actual Judaism, and then often only in terms of a Christian end-times scenario. Maybe anyone using the term should be tested to see if s/he is able to talk for at least five minutes in a positive way about Jewish tradition as it differs from Christian tradition.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

I hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian" and I hear "the only two religious groups that good Americans aren't supposed to hate and fear."

This is not meant to be taken as sarcasm.

[infintysquared.livejournal.com]

Somehow, I find this reassuring. That you said so, I mean. Out in public. Sort of.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Not to accept the negative take, but somewhere between Avonlea and the Bible Belt and Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule ... there's something there.

Bible Belt (and Narnian) Christians may not see the 'Old Testament' anything like the same way that Jews do. But some do see it as having quite a different quality than the 'New Testament.' Rural, earthy. In many ways easier to connect with.

Not superceded, not appropriating the real Jewish history -- but appreciating, maintaining, and giving credit for what the BB sees in it.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

PS. Southern Bible Belt also includes 'Old Testament' imagery via African-American religious culture.

[avram]

I used to think it was an honest attempt at inclusiveness, but as I learned to listen for context, I realized that it was usually used in the phrase "our Judeo-Christian values" by Christians who actually meant "our Christian values, but let me add 'Judeo-' on there so I don't sound antisemitic".

Google has found for me an essay about the term which claims it was first coined in England in the 1820s to refer to Jewish converts to Christianity, and the more modern sense of the term was introduced by liberals in the 1930s at the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Its adoption by the right started in the '50s, partly as a way of contrasting a religious America with an atheistic USSR. For the past decade it's been used a lot to portray Jews and Christians as having a relationship not shared by Muslims.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Btw, Womzilla and I are finally watching Community, starting with the first season--I have no idea why it took so long to register on our radar--and we just watched an episode with an almost excruciating example of a single-minded Christian trying to deal with the fact that other religions exist. ("Comparative Religion," season 1 episode 12.)

[gildedacorn.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Okay, I'm a Christian and:

1. I do not find the term in itself offensive; it used to turn up regularly in my History of Religion classes. As far as I know, it refers to the cultural/religious intersection of those two religions, i.e. what they have in common, and it's an adjective, not a noun.

2. I have observed that in certain circles it gets used in a condescending, just-this-side-of-hostile way that grates on me like fingernails on a blackboard. (These are contexts where the users are unfriendly to Judeo-Christian beliefs and Christian beliefs/Christians in particular.) :/

[shagbark.livejournal.com]

My main question is whether Judeo-Christian, or Jewish, or Christian, is supposed to refer to their present meaning, their original meaning, or their "average" meaning over a historic interval; or is it an adjective that varies over the time it is applied to?

The original, scriptural Judaism was ruthless, brutal, and genocidal. The original Christianity was fanatically pacifist, anti-family, anti-materialistic, apolitical, and communistic. I'm pretty sure almost nobody uses any of these terms to refer to the beliefs and traditions found in the original scriptures.

[shagbark.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that you need to state whether Pauline Christianity is "original" Christianity. (I would say no.)

[subnumine.livejournal.com]

You appear to mean the Book of Joshua by "the original, scriptural Judaism"; Isaiah and Jonah are equally scripture. On the other hand, much of your description of Christianity is true of many Christians any time in the first three centuries.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I see "Judeo-Christian" as an attempt to co-opt Judaism, used by Christians who, perhaps quite innocently, have no idea how different the religions are. "The Abrahamic religions" doesn't bother me that way, partly because it's a plural, indicating they are really different religions that are simply being spoken of together for convenience, and not mashing two together in a compound. ("The Abrahamic religious tradition" on the other hand would convey the same feeling of co-opting that "Judeo-Christian" does.)

[celandine13.livejournal.com]

I thought I was the only one who had that particular pet peeve.

I don't like "Judaeo-Christian" being used in the context of people who want a nation (like the US) to have an explicitly religious government due to our "shared Judaeo-Christian heritage" or something like that. Because, let's face it, if you want to look at numbers, most Western countries have a Christian heritage, up to rounding errors. Or a Christian and atheist heritage. I think theocratic types like to say "Judaeo-Christian" to protect themselves from allegations of anti-semitism, but the "Judaeo" part is really just window dressing. Jews have historically not fared too well in countries with a legally established religion (unless it's their own; the Hasmoneans were a Jewish theocracy, with mandatory circumcision.)