The Rabbi, the Pope, and C.S. Lewis

No, this is not a joke! I recently finished reading Pope Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth. It is an excellent book and I recommend it highly. The most fascinating part for me was the pope's discussion of a book by Rabbi Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. In that book Neusner seeks to explain why, if he had lived in Israel in the time of Jesus, he would not have been one of Jesus' followers. Neusner argues that Jesus is not just another rabbi attempting to reform Judaism and reinterpret the Torah, but is rather rejecting the Torah and its commandments, and attempting to take its place as the center of the Jewish faith. As a Jew loyal to the Torah, Neusner cannot accept Jesus or anyone else who seeks to replace the Torah. Still, Neusner is respectful toward Jesus and even says that he honors him and wishes him well.

Clearly, Benedict was impressed by Neusner's openness to rational engagement with and respect for Jesus. The pope makes the point that Neusner has understood that the Gospel of Matthew (on which Neusner bases his portrayal of Jesus) identifies Jesus with God, and it is only because Jesus saw himself as God that he can make the claims he does about Jewish law. In Benedict's view, Neusner has seen what many modern New Testament scholars and Christian theologians do not see--that interpreting Jesus as a liberal rabbi continuous with the tradition of Judaism rather than a disruption is untenable and even insulting to Jews who reject Jesus.

After reading the pope's book (I don't have Neusner's book yet but will order it soon) I read an interesting critique of Neusner by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik in the January 2008 issue of First Things. Soloveichik faults Neusner for his claim to honor Jesus and wish him well. According to Soloveichik, since Neusner acknowledges that Jesus claimed to be God, he cannot escape C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma from Mere Christianity: a man claiming to be the Son of God must either be the Son of God or a lunatic or the devil. Having rejected the first option, Neusner is stuck honoring and befriending either a madman or Satan, an absurd stance.

But is that right? I must confess (this might be considered heresy around here) I've never been convinced by Lewis' argument. Why is it absurd to respect someone who claims to be divine? Most of the pagan Roman emperors claimed divinity and were worshipped. Many of them, to be sure, were lunatics. But I still admire and respect Marcus Aurelius, who for all his many faults was a serious philosopher with many interesting things to say. If that's acceptable, why can't Neusner or any one else who denies the divinity of Christ nevertheless respect and honor him? So I'm with Neusner and Benedict on this point rather than Soloveichik and Lewis.

A final point: this intellectual encounter between Neusner, Benedict, and Soloveichik is the best interfaith dialogue I have found. Such dialogue tends usually to be burdened by a preordained relativism that prevents genuine debate. Happily that was not the case here.