African Research Journal of Education and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 (1), 2022
By George W. Ngala Odiembo
The Catholic University of Eastern Africa
Author E-mail Address: odiembo@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of inter-religious dialogue on Jewish Christian intolerance in the light of globalization since the beginning of the 20th century. A lot of research has been done on Jewish-Christian relations in Europe, America and Asia, not much, has been done in Africa. In this paper demonstrates the rise of a new mindset was set sail due to the impact of the Shoah, the creation of the state of Israel, the ecumenical movement and the Vatican II Council 1962-5, which in combination made the desired changes more widespread. Consequently, Christianity which instigated violence against Jews as killers of Jesus rediscovered a respect and admiration for Judaism. Moreover, this paper further shows that change of heart and mind of Christians marked a restored relationship that had gone sore for centuries. Jews no longer felt alone and that partnership and collaboration with Christianity is possible. Today, Christian feels sorry for the impact of the legacy of the Adversus Judaeos (anti-Jewish) literature. Christianity no longer holds that Jewish interpretation of scripture was false or had been replaced by Christian interpretation. Today, Christianity especially the Roman Catholic Church has learnt that its identity is dependent on right relationship with Judaism, which is our elder sibling. Many Church leaders promote attitude of respect toward their elder brothers and sisters so as to combat the risk of anti-Semitism. Although these are Official teachings of the Church, there remains a great deal to the pulpit and pew.
Keywords: Inter-religious Dialogue, Jewish Christian Intolerance, Inter-faith dialogue
1. Introduction
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-65) which was promulgated by Pope John 23″I issued a historic document known as Nostra Aetate a Latin word which means “in our time’.Without a doubt, Nostra Aetate is an embodiment of the modern transformation in Christian Jewish relations in general and Catholic Jewish relations in particular. According to Rosen (1979:1) ‘Nostra Aetate’ emerged out of a historical context. Nostra Aetate no. 5 exhorts the Church to embrace interreligious dialogue and collaboration with adherents of other faiths. Two months later after Nostra Aetate was promulgated the Conciliar Declaration Humane Dignitatis on religious freedom was approved. These two declarations opened new frontiers for Christian theology in general and for interreligious with non-Christian religions
Nostra Aetate no.4 clearly intimates the Church cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the Jews with whom God made a covenant. Nor can the Church forget that she draws life from the root of the olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the gentiles (Rom.11:17-24).
The Conciliar declaration further states that besides… Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, so that all may be saved. The extermination of the two thirds of the European Jewry was devastating. It is well known as the Shoah. Consequently, the Jewry was, of course, deeply concerned in the wake of the Shoah) to ensure a climate that would reduce the possibilities of such horror.
2. Theological Reparation Owed to Judaism
The phrase ‘theological reparation’ was coined by Mussner. Franz. Obviously the Church realized that her theological interpretation of the mystery of Israel was the reason for ‘preaching of contempt’ for the Jewry. To date the Church has felt remorse and asked for forgiveness with regard to anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism.
The Pontifical Council in charge of Interreligious Dialogue. Catholic Jewish dialogue aimed at re-examining the Scriptures with our Jewish brothers and sisters to study the mystery of Israel and that of Jesus. It should be realized that Jews read the Old Testament according to the Talmud tradition whereas Christians read it in the light of the New Testament.
Interreligious dialogue between Jews and Christians implies that a Jew wishing to dialogue with Christians should read the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles so as to grasp the key concepts of Christianity. In a similar way, a Christian who seeks to understand Judaism needs to know the– Hebrew Bible explained by a Jew and the basic ideas of the oral Torah which includes the Mishnah and the Talmud (Tobon, 2004).
Tobon (2004) intimates the ‘theological reparation’ means giving back Jesus to his own people. Jesus was thrown out by his own people and captured by the Christian Church. Today, Jews are beginning to recognize Jesus as one of their own unlike in the past his name was taboo. Christians on the other hand, Christian are beginning to discover his Jewish, cultural and religious identity.
This position implies also a new approach to the covenant theology of Sinai which has never been abrogated (John Paul II: 1981). Significantly the reparation we are talking about is not theological but also Jewry expects Christians to respect their differences.
3. The Ten Points of Seelisberg of 1997 by International Council of Christians (ICC)
Roshen (1997:1) observes that the first document of its kind produced together by prominent Jewish and Christians theologian as an outcome of the dialogue is known as the ten points of Seelisberg, issued in 1947 by the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ).. Tobon (2004:28) outlines the ten points as follows:
- Remember that One God speaks to us through the Old and the New Testament.
- Remember Jesus was born of a Jewish mother
- Remember that the first disciples, apostles and the first martyrs were Jews.
- The commandment of love of neighbors applies to all
- Avoid distortion or miss-presentation of biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the aim of extolling Christianity.
- Avoid using the word Jews exclusively to refer to Jews as enemies of Jesus.
- Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus on all Jews or on Jews alone. It was only a section of Jews who wanted Jesus killed.
- . Avoid referring to the biblical curses, or the cry of a raging mob.
- Avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jews are reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering.
- Avoid speaking of the Jews as if the first members of the Church had not been Jews
Cohn-Sherbok (1999:9) reports that the World Council of Churches (WCC) declared that the terrible events of the Shoah must be remembered, in Amsterdam in 1948. At the Evanston Assembly in 1954, the Jewishness of Jesus was emphasized as well as God’s concern for Jews. In 1961, at the New Delhi Assembly, the WCC condemned anti-Semitism and stressed that the Jews should not be blamed for Christ’s death.
Cohn Sherbok further notes that in 1977, the British Working Group of the Consultation on the Church and the Jewish people highlighted the theological significance of the Holy Land for the Jewish people. Lately, the WCC has summarized a set of convictions which now guide most Christians Churches in their dealings with the Jewish people in which anti-Semitism is condemned and the Covenant of God with the Jewish people is affirmed.
4. Christian Self-Reflection in Light of this Dialogue
Rosen (1997:2) quotes a statement by Cardinal Edward Cassidy in Prague, 1990′ ‘the fact that anti-Semitism has found a place in Christian thought and practice calls for an act of “Teshuvih” (repentance) and reconciliation on our part….’ In the same spirit John Paul II condemned anti-Semitism as a sin against God and against humanity.
Rosen (1997:3) further elaborates that the 1975 Guidelines for Implementation Nostra Aetate issued by the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, established by Pope Paul VI further clarifies this exhortation. Not only did it declare that Christians must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in light of their own religious experience, but also called for research into the problems bearing on Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations, particularly in the field of exegesis, theology, history and sociology. Furthermore, in relation to higher institutes of Catholic research the guidelines indicate that wherever possible, Chairs of Jewish Studies will be created and collaborated with the Jewish scholars encouraged.
Naturally, the impact of the dialogue upon theological understanding and teaching has more often than not, been less explicit. Cardinal Martini declared in an address to the ICCJ International Colloquium in 1984 expressed doubts how the Catholic Church and .Jews would enrich and integrate each other without neglecting of the essential, unrelinquishable features of their own existence.
5. Jewish Thought in Light of the Dialogue
Somewhat paradoxical in this light, then is the fact that some of the most prominent Jewish advocates of the inter-religious encounter- themselves products of modern culture and, secularism (Fackenheim, 1968:38). Novak (1989:103) concurs with Fackenheim and Greenberg (1985) and Agus (1974).
Worthy of mention in this regards are the Orthodox Christian scholars Michael Wyschograd who declares that Jews must try to understand Christianity’s role in God’s redemptive work and Rabbi Irving Greenberg who called upon Jewry and Christians to affirm the fullness of the faith claims of one another (Fisher, 1986).
Moreover, another theological category for affirming a special mutual responsibility is also provided in terms of shared values and obligations under the rubric of the traditional Jewi5h understanding of the supreme biblical obligation to sanctify the divine name. This idea rightly finds its expression in the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) as a Jewish perspective of the theological basis for the bilateral dialogue in addition to the universal bases for such.
6. The Call to Dialogue of Action/Tikkun Olam
Indeed the dialogue finds the widest theological common ground within Jewry as well as between the communities, when it addresses not only ethical questions within the bilateral relationship, but our shared responsibilities towards society at large.
A good example where Christians and Jews could constructively engage in dialogue is in starting up a joint project together, say; preserve the environment because we share Gods earth. We become partners with God as stewards of creation. Another area would be the area of human dignity and human rights advocacy justice and peace around the world.
Thirdly, another area where the two religions could cooperate is the area of peace process; the educational one not the political one. There is a desperate need for massive religious and educational campaign to change hearts and minds of the people, on both sides to enable them to live together.
7. Points of Agreement and Disagreement in Christian and Jewish Dialogue
The prohibition of adultery and incest; Degrees of forbidden propinquity; Prohibitions of male homosexual acts and bestiality; The prohibition of male masturbation; The prohibition of natural parenthood, both the call to children to honor and respect parents, and thorough responsibilities of parents toward their children. This is the basis of a nuclear family.
On the hand, they have disagreed on the following:
Divorce prohibited by many churches always accept; Polygamy where a variable attitude has existed amongst both Jews and Christians in different parts of the world; Attitudes towards human sexuality have ranged widely within each faith: not all Christianity is Augustinian. Jewish apologists over-simplify in contrasting Jewish (positive) with Christian (hostile); The virtue of celibacy at least for members of Religious Orders; The handling of menstrual cycle; Female masturbation and homosexual acts (is unclear whether there were permitted or merely ignored by authorities who don’t record a prohibition); Contraception — a range of views in each fact and Abortion: this constitutes a range of views in each faith.
8. Four Ingredients that Make Inter-Religious Dialogue Possible
Rabbi Kronish has outlined four major ingredients of dialogue:
- The dialogue must be personal, based on forming real personal relationships between. This is the first ingredient or vitamin which makes dialogue a genuine human experience rather than a theological or theoretical one.
- The dialogue must involve learning about the core values and the core religio-national narratives of the other person or group’s religion. In so doing, interreligious dialogue involves much interreligious learning, often based on studying the key texts of the other’s tradition. Indeed joint text-study has become an integral part of interreligious dialogue in our work in for peace-building and reconciliation in Israel and Palestine.
- The dialogue must deal with the core issues of the conflict. It should be transformative.
- Dialogue must lead to action. We have talked enough reconciliation can’t come only through talking it must involve redemptive and conciliatory gestures and actions which lead to mutual understanding and the existential reality of peaceful co-existence. (Kessler 2010)
9. Obstacles to Jewish- Christian Dialogue
There will be obstacles to the dialogue such as:
Understanding better the period of the Shoah: If the document ‘we remember’ (1998) published by the Holy See is not the last word by the Church on this subject, then this means that we will not need to continue to confront this subject together in a serious and substantive way. Moreover there is need for opening the Vatican Archives to ascertain the historical truth.
Cardinal Kasper has repeatedly talked of the Church’s commitments to consent to the access of the Vatican Archives. This is a new statement and it needs to be heard in the Jewish world. The Holy See now agrees to open its archives. The potential beatification of some Popes in the Catholic Church is a serious issue costing a giant shadow over the dialogue in the present and for the future (Kessler, 2010).
10. The Modern Study of Jewish – Christian Relations
Several major themes in the last fifty years have emerged from writings that have explored Jewish Christian relations. Beginning with biblical studies modern scholarly works demonstrated a willingness to take the Hebrew Bible seriously on its own terms, rejecting the traditional approach of the `Adversus Judaeos’ literature, which had rendered it virtually impossible for Christians to know how to write an Old Testament theology. It is increasingly accepted that Christian biblical theology can only he developed in dialogue with Judaism.
Kessler has categorically emphasized the significance of Jewish-Christian relations. Associated with biblical theology are studies of the New Testament profoundly influenced by the writings of the scholars Geza Vernes and E.P. Sanders modern scholarship since the 1970s has emphasized that the ministry of Jesus can only be understood in the historical context first century. Palestinian Judaism, since Jesus was a Jew who taught his fellow Jews, some of whom followed his teaching while others did not. Scholars point out that Jesus’ Jewish followers argued amongst themselves about the conditions under which Gentiles might be admitted to this new Jewish movement and with other Jews over issues such as Torah observance and claims about Jesus.
The New Testament hears witness to the disputes, which were vigorous and often bitter, but until recently New Testament scholars had almost completely neglected the fact that these arguments were between Jews, about a Jew or about Jewish issues. Traditionally, polemical passages were read as if they were ‘Christian’ arguments against ‘Jews’. Modern scholarship has shown that to read them this way is misled them and that this misreading contributed significantly to the Christian ‘teaching of contempt’. (Kessler 2010).
Rosemary Radford Ruether argued that Christology in particular was the root cause of the `Adversus Iudaeos’ tradition and that antisemitism lay deep within Christian tradition. As she put it, ‘Anti-Judaism developed theologically in Christianity as the left-hand of Christology. That is to say anti-Judaism was the negative side of the Christian claim that Jesus was the Christ.’ Ruether suggested that, when Jews refused to accept the Christian teachings regarding Christ. Christians felt obliged to undermine their opponents’ views. This was, achieved by anti-Jewish Christian teaching and supertsessionist polemic. (Kessler 2010).
One of the most influential post-war New Testament scholars is Ed Parish Sanders whose work informed by a study of early Judaism in its own right, not just as background to the story of Christian origins. He placed the Christian-Jewish debate at the heart of academic biblical study. Another important biblical scholar is Krister Stendahl, Bishop of Stockholm (1921-2008). In his studies of Paul, Stendahl maintains that the apostle’s chief concern was not introspective and individualistic but historical and communal, that is, the question of how, while the Jews remain within the Abrahamic Covenant, Gentiles also can be adopted into it justification by faith’ means that this can be done without strict Torah observance. Stendahl argues that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was less a conversion than a call. As a result of these and other New Testament studies, scholarship now tends to describe the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in terms of siblings (the metaphor of elder and younger brothers being the most common) rather than in terms of a father (Judaism) — daughter (Christianity) relationship.
As well as reflection on the New Testament, the study of antisemitism and the Holocaust is also of central concern to Jewish-Christian relations, as illustrated by continuing controversies over the role of Pius XII. Franklin Littell (19.17-2009), a Methodist theologian who was in Germany immediately after the Second World War, stresses the failures of the Churches, notably, Protestant ‘peddlers of cheap grace.’ He promoted the study of the Holocaust in the development of Christian theology, suggesting that Christian Jewish conversation would help free it from antisemitism.
Karl Barth’s writings are also an important topic. Barth’s opposition to Nazism and anti- Semitism was based on the view that the relationship between the Jewish people and, the. Church was unbreakable because of God’s election of the Jew Jesus, which made opposition to antisemitism the duty of every Christian. He compared Jewish Christian relations to the relationship between the various Christian churches. Barth (1886-1968) has been criticized for using supersessionist language and would not engage in Jewish-Christian dialogue. In his view, the sole authority of Christ took precedence over any secular political authority and discussions with Jews were subordinate to this principle.
Catholic writers such as Edward Flannery (1912-98) have also examined the history of Christian antisemitism and Charlotte Klein (1915-85) uncovered surprisingly fixed ideas among some New Testament scholars, even including contemporary writers, who contrasted law and grace in Pauline teaching and continually referred to first century Judaism as “late Judaism. Among the scholars whose prejudices she revealed are Martin Noth (1902-68). Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1979) and Joachim Jeremias (1900-79). A similar contribution has been made by Katharina Von Kellenbach, whose study of certain feminist theologians revealed a prejudicial portrait of Judaism as the antithesis of feminist values, associating it wholly with portrait of Judaism as the antithesis of feminist values, associating is wholly with patriarchy. The writings of Ruether can be cited in this regard, since she maintained a view of the coming of Jesus as heralding the liberation of oppressed women from a patriarchal, oppressive Jewish culture. (Kessler 2010).
As far as the Holocaust is concerned, a number of Jewish thinkers have been particularly influential, especially Richard Rubenstein, Emil Fackenheim (1916-2003) and Irving Greenberg. Rubenstein sets the mechanical non-humanity of the perpetrators of the Shoah in a vast historical context, on the one hand of slavery essentially making humans into consumables) and on the other the rise of the inhuman city, where functionaries survey the lives of the city dwellers from behind closed doors. Rubernstein rejects any notion of God acting in history, for after Auschwitz only human beings can create value and meaning, and Judaism has a particular role in this renewal and reintegration. (Kessler 2010).
Rubenstein’s argument that belief in a redeeming God — one who is active in history — is no longer credible deeply influenced Christian theologians, among them three protestant thinkers who have been described as the death of God theologians. T.Altizer, W. Hamilton and P.Van Buren (1924-98).
Fackenheim himself, a survivor, seeks to interpret the significance of the Shoah, where evil went beyond all explanation. God and Israel are still in relationship and the Jewish people are precluded from despair or abdication of responsibility. Fackenheim’s thesis of a 614th commandment for Jews to remain Jewish and thus not to grant Hitler a posthumous victory gained wide recognition among Jews and Christians, and he called on Christians to support Israel as a guarantor for the future survival of the Jewish people and for Jews and Christians to work together for tikkun alam.
The problem for religion seems to become rather obvious, once we start speaking of truths. If one religion is true, then the other religions are logically reckoned to be false. And on a lesser scale, if one church lays claim to the full- of truth, then the other faith communities are to one degree or another deficient-an awkward position to maintain when one is trying at the same to encourage ecumenical dialogue. Vatican II attempted to move beyond this impasse, at least in terms of our living alongside one another, by proposing that there exists a “hierarchy of truths. (Neusner 2008).
Instead of thinking about of separation, Vatican II chose to think in terms of degrees of union, levels or circles of shared conviction about the relation-between human beings and God and the moral life. Tolerance does not seem to be possible whenever we start to measure another religion in terms of truth and because the only response to error is to correct it or to put it down, properly theological understanding of truth requires that we distinguish the notion of truth from the notion of correctness. Doctrinal propositions, positions in general, are determined to be correct or incorrect with respect to an underlying conceptual framework. As human understanding advances, those frameworks often change. When they do, what was considered to be correct or coherent at one time may turn out to be incorrect by a later norm or standard.
The most effective and reliable means of promoting inter-religious dialogue offered by Vatican I is ecumenical contact and dialogue. The Council opened the door to common worship on the part of Catholics and other Christians under “certain special circumstances”, like getting to know the outlook of their separated fellow history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious picture. It urged meetings among Christian groups for the logical problems. It called for ecumenical sensitivity when courses are taught in Catholic Seminaries and divinity that others can collaborate in the work of social justice and peacemaking and the Council reminded Catholics of how deeply they are united with many other Christian groups through a common baptism.
On a practical level, tolerance seems to be enhanced whenever the church finds itself in a multicultural, religiously pluralist society and when, at the same time, Catholics are sufficiently secure about their own religious identity that they can enter into dialogue and collaborate with followers of other religions. Conversely, religious intolerance is likely to be fueled when people sense that their cultural identities are being threatened. On a theological level, tolerance is encouraged in the measure that believers perceive rays of truth in the other religions all those rays originate in God, who is truth itself. One invites intolerance whenever communities behave as if they own the truth, conflating truth orthodoxy. If salvation is possible to followers of other religions, then must be sharing himself with them in and through those religions—an implication that Vatican II did not develop. (Neusner 2008)
In his address at the University of Regensberg, titled ‘Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections,” Benedict XVI sketched what he considers an important contribution that Catholic theology can make to interreligious dialogue, namely, its insistence upon the connection between faith and reason. Vatican was presupposing this connection when it spoke of that truth which enlightens everyone. According to the Ratzinger no religion should espouse a belief or a behavior that is essentially irrational which violence is by its very nature—in the name of God. Whatever is genuinely for God will not violate the canons of intelligibility, and both violence and the intolerance that gives rise to it are intrinsically unreasonable. The Pope’s unfortunate quotation about Muhammed and the sword required explanation and apology, but the overall point of his address remains timely. Tolerance alone may not be enough to enable religions to exist alongside each other, so that the truth that is God and the truth that the mind seeks do not diverge, tearing apart the human family. (Neusner 2008).
11. Roman Catholic Understanding of Religious Tolerance in Modern Time in Light of Vatican II Council
From a Catholic perspective, the word tolerance might not be all that join because, to some ears, it skirts the notion of truth. Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict xvi) explained the difficulty this way: Are tolerance and belief in revealed truth opposites? Putting it another way: are Christian faith and modernity compatible?’ If tolerance is one of the foundations of modern age, then is not the claim to have recognized the essential truth an obsolete of presumption that has to be rejected if the spiral of violence that runs through the history of religions is to be broken? Today, in the encounter of Christianity with the world, this question arises ever more dramatically, and ever more widespread becomes the persuasion that renouncing the claim to truth in the Christian faith is the fundamental condition for a new universal peace, the fundamental condition for any reconciliation of Christianity with modernity.” (Ratzinger: 2004)
In attempting to answer this question, then-Cardinal Ratzinger argued, citing an important New Testament text: “Truth and love are identical. This sentence – if the whole of its demand is understood—is the surest guarantee” of tolerance of an association with truth, whose only weapon is itself and, thereby love. Tolerance by itself would prove to be an unsteady platform on which to build the unity of the human race precisely because the human mind searches for truth: and truth is, following Plato, inseparable from the good–and from the mystery of God Ratzinger cites Mark 10:18). Moreover, one cannot talk about truth without considering the notion of freedom and, as the Council does, the dignity of the human person. As a consequence, we might say that the notion of religious tolerance does not stand apart from the notions of truth and freedom. Of course, the very idea of religious tolerance has evolved. Writing shortly before the final text of this Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis humanae) was voted on and promulgated, the North American theologian John Courtney Murray explain some forty years ago the outdated reasoning that was blocking the decree’s passage:
The theory of religious tolerance takes its start from the statement, considered to be axiomatic, that error has no rights, that only the truth has rights—and exclusive rights. From this axiom a juridical theory is deduced, which distinguishes between thesis” and “hypothesis.” The thesis asserts that Catholicism, per se and in principle should be established as the one “religion of the • state,” since it is the one true religion. Given the institution of establishment, it follows by logical and juridical consequence that no other religion, per se and in principle, can be allowed public existence or action within the state (which, normally. in this theory. is considered to be identical and co-extensive with society). Error has no rights. Therefore error is to be suppressed whenever and wherever possible; intolerance is the rule. Error, however’ be tolerated when tolerance is necessary by reason of circumstances, that is, intolerance is impossible; tolerance remains the exception. Tolerance therefore is a hypothesis, a concession to a factual situation, a lesser evil.
12. Conclusion
In this paper, we have discussed the impact of inter-religious intolerance and how Jewish-Christian dialogue was triggered mainly after the extermination of six million Jewry under Hitler’s German Nazi Regime in 1933. This devastating event, so called Shoah (Holocaust) enabled some Christians to reflect on their religious vocation. However, there are still some challenges in spite of the efforts in Jewish-Christian relations.
The paper has examined the Roman Catholic understanding of religious tolerance since Vatican council II (1962-5). Further, we have analyzed modem scholarships on Jewish-Christian relations, declaration on relation with non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate) and theological reparation owed to Judaism.
Moreover, we have outlined Ten Points of Seelisberg, Switszerland in 1947. In the same vein we looked at both Christian and Jewish reflection in light of dialogue in the age of globalization. Not only have we shown what may be an obstacle to Jewish-Christian mutual dialogue.
Finally, we have recommended areas of mutual cooperation such as global peace building, environmental protection, and Scriptural interpretation, training of religious leaders to understand and appreciate hence develop attitude of mutual respect for each other’s religion. By and large, there is considerable progress already made in this regard. However, we must admit that still there is much work that needs to be done especially what Berger Allan calls Trialogue that is, to bring Jews, Christians and Muslims on a roundtable inter-faith engagement. Christian identity is dependent on right relationship with Judaism.
References
Agus, .J.B. 1974. Dialogue and Tradition, The Challenges of Contemporary Judeo-Christian Thought. New York.
Berger, L. A. ed. 2012. Trialogue & Terror: Judaism, Christianity & Islam after 9/11. New York: Sheed and Ward.
Berger, L. A. ed. 2014. Post Holocaust Jewish Christian Dialogue: After the Flood. Before the Rainbow. New York: Sheed and Ward.
Fackenhein, E. 1968. These twenty Years, in ‘Quest for past and future.’
Fisher E.J. Ed et.al. 1996. The Relationship of Judaism and Christianity: Toward a New Model. in Twenty Years of Jewish — Catholic Relations.
Flannery, A. ed. 1985. Vatican II Council. Rome.
Greenberg, S. 1986. Pluralism and Jewish Education, Religious Education.
John Paul II, 1980. The Alliance Never Cancelled in Acta Apostolis Sedis (AAS) 73 Speech in Mainz.
Kessler, E. 2010. An Introduction to Jewish Christian Relations. Cambridge University Press.
Kessler, E. ed.et al. ed. 2005. Dictionary of Irwish Christian Relation Cambridge. University Press. Cambridge.
Mussner, F. 1984. Tractate on the Jews, Philadelphia: Fortress.
Novak, D. 1989. Jewish Christian Dialogue. A Jewish Justification, We remember 1998. Published by the Holy See.
Ratzinger, J. 2004. Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Neusner, C. Chilton eds. 2008 Religious Tolerance in World Religion. Pennsylvania. Templeton Foundation Press.