MetaCatholic

Iyov notes the kerfuffle about Ann Holmes Redding’s claim to be both Muslim and Christian (which I was highly critical of here) and then comments that:

I do not understand why an equally vigorous campaign is not being launched against so-called “Messianic Jews” — that is Christians who maintain that they are still Jewish in belief, and not apostate. Certainly, if it is impossible to be simultaneously Christian and Muslim, then it must be equally impossible to be simultaneously Christian and Jewish.

There are three significant differences, it seems to me, between the two, which are worth reflecting on:

1. Most (perhaps all) of the New Testament writers would have self-identified as Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. At the time of its writing, Jewish and Christian self-definition (in some part over against each other) was still ongoing. There is, in that sense, a certain precedent. Nonetheless, those who sought to hold on to that tradition became estranged from Judaism because of their beliefs about Jesus, and estranged from Christianity because of their Torah-observance, and concomitant dissociation from Gentiles. The historical precedent is contra-indicative of a continuing “Messianic Judaism”.
2. Unlike Christianity and Islam, “Jewish” has always carried both ethnic and religious connotations. “Atheist Jew” is a term which can be understood despite its apparent self-contradictions precisely because of the ethnic connotations. The language of “Messianic Jew” may be problematic, but it is less self-contradictory than “Christian Muslim.”
3. There has been a certain attraction for some in seeking to dissociate belief in Jesus as Messiah from the long history of Christian anti-Semitism. Seeking to proclaim a “Christian” faith in Jesus while refusing to identify with Christian politico-religious prejudice can be, from one point of view, understandable. It is probably at least disingenuous, if not dishonest, since one cannot easily disown the history of those who have believed in Jesus in that way, nor, indeed, learn form Christian history’s mistakes. Some of those “Messianic Jews” I’ve read or heard seem to me to combine both pro-Zionism and anti-Judaism – an absolutely mind-boggling accomplishment!

From a developed Christian perspective, already embraced by the apostle Paul, the idea of creating a Jewish enclave for Jesus, that insists on distinguishing itself from other Christians by ethnicity and descent, is exactly the wrong way to go. I don’t fully agree with Iyov that “Muslim-Christian” and “Messianic Jew” are identical in their confusions. I am not sure (for reason 2 above) that “Messianic Jew”  is as oxymoronic as “Muslim-Christian”, but it is, I think, just as mistaken and muddle-headed.

On Better Bibles Blog Peter Kirk draws attention to changes in the ESV, currently being listed carefully by Rick Mansfield. On his own blog Peter has a bit of fun with the replacement of wizards by necromancers. He is right, generally to describe most of the changes Rick has so far listed as trivial. They are often simply grammatical corrections.

There is, however, one change that I regard as no-trivial. The revision changes the text of Genesis 2:19.

(First edition) So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
(Revision) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

With this change the ESV aligns itself with the existing NIV translation by making a significant tense change. All other translations I am aware of agree with the earlier version, and against NIV and ESV(2007). This includes LXX (which uses an aorist). I’d be glad to hear from strong Hebraists about this, but as far as I can see, this is a rather unusual way to translate the verb.

I may be unduly cynical, but have to ask: is this an attempt to unify Genesis 1 & 2 as a single narrative? Is that “had formed” meant to imply that this refers back to the sixth day order? God creates animals then humans. This single “had formed” presents chapter 2 as a detailed exploration of the events of the sixth day.

Taken together the divine fiat of Genesis 1 stresses the transcendence of the Creator. The anthropomorphic pottery of Genesis 2 brings God’s immanent involvement to the foreground. Eliding these stories together seems to do violence to both of them.

Have we got here in this “had formed” a theology of what sort of book the Bible ought to be, or Mosaic authorship, determining what the text is meant to say, instead of a straightforward translation of what it does say? I only ask, but it seems an important question to me.