Religion

What is religion aside from its semantic construction? What is religion aside from the religious? In a relatively reflexive manner, the insider and outsider interact within an interpretative relationship (Olson 10). Upon designating certain characteristics with religion, objective categorization of various elements assemble ‘religion’. However, when one critiques the objectivity of such a construction, a conceptual ‘a priori knowledge’ unconditioned by experience establishes universals which influence observation (Olson 6). Thus, the term religion must be understood as an individual understanding academically institutionalized.

Institutionally, religion, as an academically established study, was introduced during the late 1800’s within European universities. Within American universities, it was not until the late 1950’s until the study of religion was established. Along these lines, as a member of the Human Sciences, religion has been recognized as an academic construction. The study of religion observes and accurately examines the beliefs, behaviors and institutions of human entities rather than asserting anything about the superhuman entities of religious belief. Thus, the truth of various beliefs or behaviors is descriptive or normative. (Apple 1: What is the Academic Study of Religion)

Sociological, psychological, and anthropological views of religion cannot succeed with a religious way of interpreting religion. If the science of religion is truly scientific, the term religion would not be used with the subject. However, complex and multiform equations and definitions establish religious events and institutions. Substantial, essentialist, theological, experiential, functional, social, and individual views all offer definitions of religion (Olson 4). Thus, sacred, holy, or cultic observations consisting of beliefs and institution are established within an analytic and imaginative act of observation.

Therefore, a non-evaluative comparative method in a cross cultural study of religious beliefs, practices, and ritual of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ is the organization of religion (Apple 3). However, the precise etymology of the word ‘religion’ is derived from the latin words releger (to be careful, mindful) and religare (to bind together) or to pay close attention. By the pre-Christian era, an etymological relation of religio with ‘releger’; to re-trace or re-read was established. However, in other investigational writings the term ‘religio’ is used in ambiguity. (Apple 3)

However, within the categorization of the signifier, the term religion must be understood as a designated academic construction (Gill 20). When considering the holy, the sacred, and the ‘other’ which transcends religious experience, a metaphysical reality is constructed. However, within the immanent material culture of oral narratives, dance, ritual, movements, objects, and religious symbolism identifiable institution of religious culture is established (Gill 23). Human motives and means which are illustrated within events, experience, and exercises reveal an agenda and a criterion of understanding religion. However, shifting identifiers which designate religion create a difficult interpretive criterion which establishes identifiable religious elements of religiosity.

Experiences and events which underlie evaluation open one to an examination of other representatives of religious activity. Entering into objectivity allows one to accept an ingrained awareness identifiable with worldly signifiers. Such signifiers continue to link in an evaluative acceptance of evolving evidence. Such an investigation into ‘wholly other’ awareness is ever associated with outside establishments, institutions, and material organizations (Otto 111). Upon accepting ‘institutional otherness’ one escapes evaluation of individual religiosity and investigates the arrangement and opinions evident in organized religion.

Anything considered ‘ultimately other’ and existing away from intelligible apprehension are usually resembled within commandments, ritual, and obligation which create response and reaction to rules and regulations which mold and ascertain religious behavior. Authority which governs ritual and spirituality usually illuminate an illusive agenda. In the most extreme sense, erratic, neurotic, and addictive behavior illustrate goals and ambitions within the religious. However, universal outlines of rationality and sanity imposed upon goals, responsibility, and ambition reflect an outsiders observation of an insiders conviction. Thus, in regards to ‘locus classicus’ whatever one knows or believes is only acceptable within an insider/outsider operation of engagement.

Symbols, gestures, and narratives illustrating superhuman awareness, and experiences distinctly illuminate a set of religious dispositions. An identification and classification of such symbolism embodies institution. At the lowest levels of culture which one has clear knowledge, the notion of a ghost soul animating humans is deeply ingrained within the academic establishment of religion (Tylor 59). Also, queer sacramental observances and rituals in which a being seeks to get a shamanistic way of dwelling in a self-fulfilling exaltation and ecstatic divination and theosis establish religiosity (Otto 124). Auspicious recognition in which there is no capricious act is existent when an ego exists under an awakening or hovering like god, or animism (Otto 128). Thus, one must recognize the decision of adequate and inadequate definitions. An inadequate definition represses ultimate concern, a worldview, or the sacred, where an adequate definition represents a system of beliefs and practices relative to the extra-ordinary. (Smart 144)

Axis Mundi

Within Mercea Eliade’s and Sigmund Freud’s essays on religion, both use opposing approaches in observing a manifestation of religion and/or the sacred. While one seems to hold an objective observation, a subjective evaluation is held otherwise. Within Eliades’ essay, axis mundi is evaluated, while within Freud’s essay, an egoic axis is examined. This recognition of a sacred axis seems to be identifiable within signs, symbols, locations, legends, and lore. However, all of these demarcations of the sacred remain mysterious and a complexity in evaluation is recognizable.

Within Eliade’s ‘Manifestation of the Sacred’, a Homogenius holiness is an orientation in which a Hierophany of ‘Hans Andere’ is investigated (Eliade:161). Similarly for Eliade, theophanies, hierophanies and various religious entities engage in erecting an ethereal or divine cosmogony of efficacy (162). However, enemies, agriculture, and unique emulations of holiness emulate holiness and an ‘alienuminous’ archytypical existence (163). In contrast to a pre-agricultural society, devoted to hunting ethos and a profane cult of preagricultural mother earth religion, a sacrilized cosmos of mysterious, yet Homo Religious signs is established (164).

In attempts of locating a “center of the world”, even the most nonreligious man extensively identifies a unique, ‘holy’, and private universe as if it were in such spots that he had received the revelation of a reality other than that in which he participates through his ordinary life. Eliade refers to a theophany or hierophany of religious man which is homogenius. An example of a holy location is evident within holy writ, ‘Draw not nigh hither” says the Lord to Moses; ‘put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground’ (Exodus 3, 5); according to Islamic tradition, the highest location on earth is the ‘ka’aba’ because “the pole star bears witness that it faces the center of Heaven, while Christians recognize Golgotha (167). All these beliefs express the same feeling, which is profoundly religious: “our world” is holy ground (168). The symbolism of the center reflects other series of cosmological images and religious beliefs. Among these, the most important are: holy sites and sanctuaries believed to be situated at the center of the world. (169)

Within the discipline of psychology, a quantitative approach was associated with psychology, behavior, cognitive psychology, whereas a qualitative approach was connected with psychodynamic schools of psychology like the psychoanalysis of language of the world (Freud:361). With such terms as id meaning ‘it’, and ego meaning, ‘I’, a super-ego represents an exaggerated self (361). Similarly, within each stage of ego a development of a psychosocial crisis that represented ego is summarized in the following way: trust/ basic mistrust (infancy); autonomy/shame and doubt (early childhood); initiative/guilty (play age); industry/inferiority (school age); identity/confusion (adolescence), intimacy/isolation (young adult); generativity/stagnation (adulthood), and integrity/despair and disgust (old age). (361)

Also, an accompaniment and an association of an almighty and all-just God, no divine world-order and no future life, will feel exempt from all obligation to obey the precepts of civilization (362). Everyone will, without inhibition or fear, follow his asocial, egoistic instincts and seek to exercise his power; Chaos, which we have banished through thousands of years of the work of civilization, will come again (362). This is because so many instinctual demands which will later be unserviceable cannot be suppressed by the rational operation of the child’s intellect but have to be tame by acts of repression, behind which, as a rule, lies the motive of anxiety of these infantile neuroses are overcome spontaneously in the course of growing up, and this is especially true of the obsessive neurosis of childhood (363).

Religion would be the universal obsessive neurosis of humanity; like the obsessive neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex (363). In so doing, the idea forces itself upon him that religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis, and his is optimistic enough to suppose that mankind will surmount this neurotic phase, just as so many children grow out of a similar neurosis. (363)

In conclusion, in Eliade’s and Freud’s essays, Religion is recognizably within, without, and obviously, no illusion. No, an illusion it would be to suppose that religion is non-existent, or unrecognizable. Thus, such an alienuminous existence of an axis of religion is evident within Eliades and Freuds essays.

Mystery

Within the Human Quest for God (where have I come from; where am I going), humankind reaches out to an infinite mystery. Concerning spiritual and theological guidance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican Council II attempt to make sense of the Mysteries of the Christian religion. In reaching out to such a Mystery, each document individually reveals the tradition and revelations which have helped humankind grapple with such a search. Ultimately, it is within such a ‘contact’ of seeking in which each document draws near to the manifestation of Mystery.

In coming together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal, each document illuminates the mystery of God and his involvement in the Church. Making known the mystery of his will (Eph 1:9), Vatican II teaches that the mysterious design of God’s wisdom is revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.(Lumen Gentium, Art. II) However, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that the mystery of God is ungraspable with human representations (Cat. 42), the Church teaches that the kingdom of Christ exists as a mystery. (LG 3)

Ministering the wonderful mystery of the nature of God, the Catechism illuminates that divine nature is mysterious just as God is Mystery.(Cat. 206) Thus, even when God reveals himself, God remains a mystery beyond words, ‘if you understood him, it would not be God’.(Cat. 230) It is within such a mystery of a ‘divine’ dimension of text, words, signs, and events, in which each document engages in drawing out both literal and spiritual witness of the sacred.

Ultimately, it is in the mystery of the Will of God that the mystery of the Christian faith becomes clear. Vatican II and the Catechism each teach that it is within the Church, tradition, and scripture in which God brings to light the mystery of his Will.(Dei Verbum 98) Although, with shadows, each document teaches that within the mystery of its Lord it will not be until the end in which God’s mystery will be manifested in full light.(LG 4)

Original Sin

Within the Theodicy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catechism teaches the doctrine of ‘Original’ sin. Drawing upon the third chapter of the Creation story in Genesis, the Catechism sheds light upon the fall of humanity using the ‘drama of sin’ narrative.(Cat. 289) In drawing upon a literal/historic view of the Genesis story, the Catechism does not reflect contemporary scholarship concerning science and evolution. Thus, in the light of modern scholarship the question arises as to whether teachings of ‘Original’ sin are outdated, unintelligible, and ultimately incorrect.

Obviously there is more to evil in the world than what we cause ourselves. Aware of a conscious ‘concupiscence’ (Cat. 418), the Church teaches that humankind experiences a ‘tendency towards evil’. Furthermore, due to the evidence of evil in which one is born and to which one is attracted, man is left to question ‘Why’ evil exists.(Cat. 284) Using figurative language, but affirming a primeval event, the Catechism offers its answer in referring to an ‘original’ sinful act which took place at the beginning of history of man. Thus, the Catechism uses the Genesis story in offering answers to the fall of man, the existence of sin, and ultimately the existence of evil. (Cat. 390)

Claiming that the Catechism is bound up with literalisation and historicisation Gabriel Daly argues that the ‘Original’ sin of an ‘Adamic’ myth is not suffice in answering the questions of ‘Why’ evil is existent within the universe (Daly 97). Admitting conflicting models of Genesis and Neo-scholastic theories of evolution, Daly questions how sin can be explained in the light of evolutionary theory and existential insights.(Daly 101, 102) Thus, upon encountering a new endeavor of analysis and synthesis, Daly urges Scientific and Critical thought in rationalizing the existence of sin and evil.(Daly 102, 103) Drawing upon Biological heredity, the influence of human society, and Environmentalist theory (Daly 103) Daly recognizes extrinsic forces rather than inherent predispositions as to explaining the nature and existence of sin. (Daly 107)

Ultimately, the Catechism does not reflect contemporary scholarship, and rather it narrates a figurative, symbolic, and ancient world view. Focused on religious truths rather than scientific truths, the Catechism dwells within Creation centered spirituality. Concerning the fall/redemption spirituality of the Christian economy, a literalized myth exists as the core of the Catechisms explanation of fallen humanity.(Daly 106) However, the Catechism goes on to teach that the existence of evil and sin in which humankind exists reveals a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

Holy Scripture in the Life of the Church

Within the life of the Church, Sacred Scripture offers access to the transmission of the Christ event. However, as a ‘human’ document, with a ‘human’ dimension, the Church recognizes scripture as the ‘human’ word of God. In recognition of such a human aspect of scripture, Sacred Scripture is also venerated as writings of inspired authorship.

Venerated as ‘Sacred’ Scripture, Vatican II’s Dei Verbum addresses the ‘divine’ authorship of the ‘inspired’ word of God.(DV 11,12) In recognition of such divine revelation, Dei Verbum teaches that the Christian religion should be nourished and ruled by Sacred Scripture which is living and active in the tradition of the Church (Heb 4:12).(DV 21) Thus, in striving for a better understanding of Sacred Scriptures (DV 24) Vatican II states that the Church hierarchy should immerse themselves in the scriptures by constant spiritual reading and diligent study.

Within the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium is given the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God.(Cat. 85) Noting how the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, the Catechism teaches that the Magisterium is ultimately the servant of Sacred Scripture.(Cat. 86) In such a light, Scripture is to be read within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church’.

Thus, through encouraging immersion in divine scriptures (Cat. 133), the Catechism teaches that ‘access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful’. Furthermore, the Church teaches that Sacred Scripture should nourish and govern the whole Christian life.(Cat. 141) In conclusion, as the Catechism teaches that all sacred scripture is but one book, and this book is Christ (Cat. 134), and as Vatican II teaches that Christ was the word made flesh (DV 2), the Church venerates divine scriptures as she venerates the Body of the Lord. (Cat. 141)

Lord's Prayer / Hail Mary

Within the Catechism’s discussion about “Christian Prayer”, the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ are outlined and explained. Concerning the urgings of the Holy Spirit, the Catechism teaches us that the exaltation of the Lordship of Jesus is espoused in both the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’. (Cat. 2681) Concerning ‘filial’ nature of our prayer, the Catechism asserts that the Church is drawn into communion with the ‘Mother of God’, and ‘Our Father’ in and through the ‘Hail Mary’, and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’. (Cat. 2672) With straightforward simplicity, the Catechism teaches how both the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ serve as examples, invocations, and petitions unto God’s Mercy.

As the ‘hodigitria’, Mary “shows the way”, and is herself “the Sign” of the way. (Cat. 2674) Furthermore, the Catechism teaches that the prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Cat. 2679) Beginning with Mary’s unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. (Cat. 2675) Thus, the Catechisms recognition of the Ave Maria illustrates Mary’s singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit in magnifying with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary. (Cat. 2682)

Concerning the Lord’s Prayer, the Catechism states that the Lord’s Prayer is the “summary of the whole Gospel”. (Cat. 2761) In response to his disciples’ request “Lord, teach us to pray” Jesus entrusted them with the ‘Our Father’. (Lk. 11:1) Furthermore, as Jesus is both the Master and Model of our Prayers, the Catechism teaches that the Spirit of the Lord gives new form to our desires; “those inner movements that animate our lives”. (Cat. 2764) On one hand, in the words of this prayer the only Son gives us the words the Father gave him. (Cat. 2775) On the other hand, as Word incarnate, he knows in his human heart the needs of his human brothers and sisters and reveals them to us. (Cat. 2765)

Divided into seven petitions, the Catechism outlines the Lord’s Prayer in such a way: Glory of the Father; Sanctification of his name; the coming of the kingdom; the fulfillment of his will; nourishment of our lives; healed of sin; and made victorious in the struggle of good over evil. (Cat. 2857) However, Jesus does not only give us a formula to mechanically repeat, rather Jesus gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us ‘spirit and life’. (Cat. 2766) Thus, the seven petitions express the groanings of the present age, in which we cry ‘Abba! Father!’. (Cat. 2766, 2771)


As the ‘Hail Mary’ honors a submission of faith from ‘now, until the hour of our death’ (Cat. 2674), the eschatological character of the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ is quintessential in its petition and hoping for the Lord. (Cat. 2776) Wholly, the prayers of the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ shine light upon the mission of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Cat. 2766) As ‘Amen’ concludes each prayer: ‘So be it’, or ‘Let it be’ expresses the concluding mystery of salvation already accomplished, once for all, in Christ crucified and risen. (Cat. 2771)

Common Good

Within the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes, the common good and private ownership of goods is explained. As paragraph 1905 in the Catechism instructs, in keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good. Presupposing respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group, and peace (Cat. 1906-1908), the common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons. (Cat. 1912) Also, as outlined in the Basic Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes mentions how the Church is obligated to extend its works toward the common good. For example, basic human needs such as: food, clothing, housing, the right freely to choose their state of life and set up a family, the right to education, work, to their good name, to respect, to proper knowledge, the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard their privacy, and rightful freedom, including freedom of religion is intended to be protected and honored by the Church. (GS26)

With respect to the private ownership of goods, the Catechism deals with such an enterprise under the Seventh Commandment of “You Shall Not Steal”. (Cat. 2401) Noting how in the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind (Gen. 1:26-29) the Catechism teaches that such stewardship lends itself to the natural urging of a solidarity between men. Thus, in maintaining the ‘integrity of creation’, and the ‘natural law’ which follows, the Catechism encourages private ownership to the extent in which private ownership fertilizes the common good of humanity. (Cat. 2452)

As Gaudium et Spes mentions, humanity has always tried to develop its life by its own effort and ingenuity. Nowadays, it has extended and continues to extend its control over nearly all spheres of nature with the help of science and technology. (GS 33) However, although Gaudium et Spes greatly emphasizes ‘humanities’ role in attempting to control nature, Gaudium et Spes also notes how ‘individuals’ are the source, focus, and the aim of all economic and social life. Thus, Gaudium et Spes mentions how it is very important, then, to facilitate access to some ownership of external goods on the part of individuals and communities. (GS 71) However, due to income unworthy of a human being, exploitation, and other excessive economic and social differences and inequalities Gaudium et Spes notes how it is the responsibility of the Church to encourage and work towards a humane equilibrium for all peoples. (GS 66)

In conclusion, both the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes teach that common good is “the sum total of social conditions which allow everyone to reach their fulfillment”. (Cat. 1924) Also, the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes agree, “the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around”. (Cat. 1912, GS 26) Thus, as both documents teach that the dignity of the human person requires the pursuit of the common good, the Church encourages that everyone should be concerned to create and support institutions that improve the conditions of human life.

Holy Orders

In the Catechism’s outlining of Holy Orders, concepts such as the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, and ‘in persona Christi’ are discussed. In Doors to the Sacred, Joseph Martos notes how the established Priesthood in Catholicism traces its lineage back to the High Priesthood of Melchizedek. (Martos 403) However, with concern to the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, the Christian tradition considers Jesus Christ to be the source of all priesthood: as the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, the priest of the new law acts in the person of, or in persona Christi of Jesus Christ. (Cat. 1546, 1548)

Furthermore, as Christ bestowed the effects of his priesthood: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21), Christ instituted an immersion into God by commanding others to enter his Priesthood. This reference to scripture represents the continuation of Christ’s word, command, and ‘Order’ in establishing His priesthood. (Martos 463) Furthermore, as Christ redeemed the world by a priestly act of sacrifice, so too the ordained priest, by virtue of participation in Christ’s priesthood, offers that same sacrifice. (Martos 459)

By a single offering Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross. However, the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. (Cat. 1545) The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers”. (Cat. 1545)

In conclusion, as Joseph Martos alludes to a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood (Martos 120), one must first examine the ‘singularity’ in which the priesthood corresponds. By virtue of sacramental consecration, the priest is not only set apart to simply perform certain functional sacramental rituals, rather, by virtue of the sacramental consecration which the priest receives, he is transformed into the sacramental ministry of Christ. (Cat. 1548) Thus, upon entering into the ‘One Priesthood of Christ’, the Priest acts ‘in persona Christi’. (Martos 459)

Catholic Priesthood

In recognition of scripture, Church tradition, and contemporary Church teaching, the identity of the Catholic Priesthood has been established. In review of tradition and documentation, one recognizes the qualifications of the priesthood, the duty of the priesthood, and furthermore the theological presuppositions of the priesthood. However, in recognition of the identity of the Catholic Priesthood, identifying a ‘simple’ theological definition is difficult to establish. In its sacramental nature, the relationship between the divine and human is incredibly ‘complex’. (Montini xv) Thus, as contemporary scholars allude to a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood (Martos 120), one must first examine a ‘singularity’ in which the priesthood corresponds. Ultimately, it is within the grace flowing from Christ’s ministry in which a singularity of identity rather than a mutual relationship of the Priesthood exists.

In order to explain the identity of the Catholic Priesthood, the Priesthood must be viewed within its relationship with the Old Covenant. In recognition of the soteriological faith of Old Testament Israel, the Catholic Church recognizes Levitical Priesthood of the Jews. (Numbers 18) However, as the Levitical priesthood was identifiable in its lineage dating back to Levi, the established Priesthood in Catholicism traces its divine lineage back to the High Priesthood of Melchizedek. (Martos 403) In Catholicism, Jesus Christ assumes the role of High Priest once and for all as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek”. (Genesis 14:18, Heb. 5:6-11)

In regards to the New Covenant, it is believed that through Christ’s Priesthood, the Covenant of the Old Testament has been fulfilled. For example, the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the priesthood of Christ in comparing his sacrificial death to the Jewish high priests’ offerings for the sins of Israel. (Hebrews 9:6-7) As Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant, Christ reconciled man to God in a similar fashion that the priesthood of the Old Covenant reconciled Israel to God through sacrifice. However, the sacrifice that Christ offered was a complete and whole sacrifice in that it ‘eternally’ reconciled man to God. (Hebrews 10:14) The sacrificial example of Christ’s death was whole and complete in the sense that Christ offered himself, and more importantly, offered God incarnate, as the atonement of man’s sin. (Georgen 9)
For Christians, Christ had all the characteristics of the priesthood which he exercised in his observant and sacrificial life (Georgen 11). The scriptural perception of Christ's priesthood cannot, however, be taken in isolation. In attempt to establish the identity of the modern priesthood, Church tradition has outlined a notion that the priesthood consists of those whom act Alter Christus. (Greshake 29)
As Alter Christus means to say that the ministerial priest is another Christ, this is only understandable in light of understanding who Christ was and what Christ accomplished. As scripture states, Christ offered himself. (Heb 7:27) Thus, as one can only understand the significance of Christ’s ministry through what he administered, similarly, one can only understand what Christ administered if one has a theological understanding of the sacramental nature of Christ.
In attempt to investigate the various aspects of the identity of Christ, one respectively gets the impression that they are dealing with the unattainable mystery of the ‘hypostatic’ word. (Greshake 44) This primordial divinity of the incarnate nature of Christ as recorded in the New Testament reflects a state of being, that seems foreign and transcended to the state of man. However, as the incarnate word, Christ served as a mediator between man and God.(1 Tm 2:5) Thus, Priests recognize their identity to the extent that they live within the ‘imminent’ mediation of the incarnate word. (Greshake 30)
Furthermore, as Christ bestowed the effects of his priesthood: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn 20:21), Christ instituted an immersion into God by commanding others to enter his Priesthood. This reference to scripture represents the continuation of Christ’s word, command, and ‘Order’ through establishing a priesthood. (Martos 463) Thus, upon entering into the priesthood of Christ, the priest, like Christ, also becomes an ‘instrument’ of God’s word. (Montini xiv)
Also, in obeying Christ as a sacrificial servant, the priesthood acts as a channel of Christ’s servitude. (Buechlin 47) Respectively, just as Christ redeemed the world by a priestly act of sacrifice, so too the ordained priest, by virtue of participation in Christ’s priesthood, offers that same sacrifice. (Martos 459) In regards to a ‘mutual’ identity of the Preisthood, it should be noted that the sacrificial rituals offered by the Catholic Priesthood are not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, however these sacramental rituals are a reenactment thereof. (Power 116,117)
Thus, as Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis states, ‘the priestly office is to administer religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings”, so too does the Catechism of the Catholic Church state "Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church". (Catechism 1536) Thus, Christ’s life is reflected as continuous within the life of the Priesthood which is immersed in the Sacraments. (Greshake 49)
It is by virtue of this sacramental consecration by which the priest enters the grace of Christ’s ministry. (Greshake 29) Through sacramental consecration, the priest enters into a spiritual unity of Christ’s ministry. (Buechlein 48) Through the priesthood which arises from the grace of Christ, the priesthood sacramentally enters into communion with God from which the ministry flows. (Buechlin 44) Thus, as the priesthood is immersed in the sacrament of Christ, the Priest also becomes a ‘living sacrament’ within the ministry of Christ. (Buechlin 42)
From scripture, and the continuing documents of the Church, one sees how the sacramental nature of the priesthood continues to represent the priesthood of Christ. Ultimately however, as priests enter the ministry of Christ, so too is Christ recognized as the High Priest of all humanity. (Hebrews 4:14) Presbyterorum Ordinis continues to state that through Holy Orders, priests are configured to Christ the Priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ. (Georgen 110) This is similar to the scripture which reads, ‘who has entered the priesthood of Christ, administers sacraments through Christ’. (1 Pet. 2:5,9)
Thus, by virtue of sacramental consecration, the priest is not only set apart to simply perform certain functional sacramental rituals, rather, by virtue of the sacramental consecration which the priest receives, he is transformed into the sacramental ministry of Christ. (Martos 459) Through sacramental consecration, the priest not only enters Christ’s mission and ministry, but the priest is also configured to Christ the Priest. (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2) Furthermore, as a Priest’s soul is marked with an indelible character (sacramentum et res) upon ordination, so too is the Priest conformed to Christ the Priest in such a way that they can act in the person of Christ the Head. (Presbyerorum 10) Thus, as Christ is the mediator of the entire priesthood before God, the ordained priest works in his person. (2 Cor. 2: 10)
Another example of the assimilation of the Priesthood into Christ is that the sacraments of ordination ‘ontologically’ change the priest (Buechlein 43). This ontological transformation reflects the spiritually transformative essence of God’s incarnate ministry through Christ. In fact, as the sacraments themselves are not only signs of salvation and grace, but spiritually transformed species, the reality of grace imbued in the material sacrament represents the incarnation and invocation of salvation. (Greshake 28) Essentially, this spiritual endowment of the sacraments represents the transformed inward nature of the priestly identity, which is an identity of grace through Christ. The imitation of Christ, or rather the assimilation into Christ’s priesthood and ministry introduces a mystical element of the sacrificial nature of Christ. (Montini xvii)
In addressing the speculative ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood, a ‘crisis’ results in such a complimentary definition of a ‘relative’ priestly entity. However, in understanding the ‘twofold’ theological nature of Christ, one can understand the reason why such a concept of ‘mutual’ identity is associated with the Priesthood and Christ. Therefore, upon enquiry into such a ‘mutual’ identity of the priesthood, one must in some detail reflect upon the ‘twofold’ nature of Christ.
In the Gospels, Christ’s mission was to do the will of God, even though it included death. As recorded within Luke 22:42, Jesus asked God to “remove this cup” of oncoming crucifixion. However, Christ’s obedience eventually overcomes his anxiety when he states, “not what I want, but what you want.” (Mk 14:36) Vatican II reflected this aspect of the priesthood when it stated, “When he is drawn to think about his real self he turns to those deep recesses of his being where God who probes the heart awaits him, and where he himself decides his own destiny in the sight of God”. (Gaudium et Spes) As one within Christ, the priesthood experiences a similar conflict of spirit which Christ faced.
However, as Vatican II states, “nevertheless man has been wounded by sin” (Gaudium et Spes, 14), it is within this exclusive state of being wounded by sin, and being saved through grace in which the priesthood seems to be separate from Christ. Complimentary, Vatican II expresses this crisis when it states, "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of our time, are the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well". (Gaudium et Spes, 1) Thus, as the Catholic theologian Gisbert Greshake draws upon, the ‘unpriestliness’ of the priesthood is precisely what unites all the priesthood into the fulfillment of Christ through grace. (Greshake 44)
In conclusion, the identity of the Priesthood which corresponds with scripture, Church tradition, and contemporary teaching, is rooted in the identity of the Priesthood of Christ. However, when modern scholarship recognizes a ‘mutual’ identity of the Priesthood, the singularity of Christ’s Priesthood is compromised. As Christ lived obedient, and served as the ultimate sacrifice of atonement, the High Priesthood of Christ ultimately assimilates the Catholic Priesthood into a state of grace by which there is a singularity of identity rather than a mutual relationship existent. Thus, as the priesthood is ultimately assimilated into Christ, the identity of the priesthood is ultimately an identity of Christ.

Works Cited
Buechlein, Daniel M. “The Sacramental Identity of the Ministerial Priesthood”, Priests for a New Millennium Catholic Bishops of the United States, Priests for a New Millennium Washington, D.C., United States Catholic Conference, US 2000

Flannery, Austin. Vatican Council II: Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations Costello Publishing Co, US 1996

Goergen, Donald J. Being a Priest Today, Editor: Goergen, Donald J., Liturgical Press, US. 1992

Greshake, Gisbert. The Meaning of the Christian Priesthood Christian Classics, US. 1989

Martos, Joseph. Doors to the Sacred Liguori publications, US. 2001
Montini, J.P., The Catholic priesthood: papal documents from St Pius X to Pius XII, ed. Monsignor P. Veuillot, Dublin 1957
Power, David N. “Representing Christ In Community and Sacrament”, Being a Priest Today, Editor: Goergen, Donald J., Liturgical Press, US. 1992

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins United States: Oxford University Press, 2001

U.S. Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Galilee Trade, US. 1995

David

A historical account of the life of David is evident within Biblical as well as extra-biblical sources. Biblically, the life of David is presented within the books of First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, and the book of Psalms. These books give detailed accounts as to the relationships and wars David was involved in, the lineage and genealogy of David, and the affections of David’s heart. Complimentary, evidence of the life of David also exist within extra-biblical records. As existent within the Shishaq, Meshan, and Tel Dan Stele inscriptions, as well as archeological discoveries of ancient city ruins, evidence as to the existence of David has been uncovered. Through these books, inscriptions, and ruins, David’s life, influence, and works have been recorded, and thus revealing the heroic nature of this historic and literary figure.

In investigating the life of David through Biblical accounts, it is important to recognize how Biblical individuals, events, and the environment in which these individuals and events existed are relevant not only in their role as historic data, but also as literary devices[1]. Thus, whether viewed as historic documents of factual evidence, or as literary sources with authorative presumptions and exaggerations, a Biblical base in investigating the life of David must be examined under a critical lense.

Historically, the task of validating the Biblical historicity of David involves working between evaluating the textual artifact, and interpreting the Biblical text. When reviewing the life of David as revealed in the Bible, it is necessary to investigate the

1. Brettler, Marc Z., “Chapter 1: Defining History, Ideology and Literature” pg. 19
earliest edition of Biblical texts; the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll’s oldest writings about the life of David have been translated into the books of Samuel[2]. These Scrolls attributed to Samuel are dated to around 250 BCE[3]. These scrolls record David’s kingship to have been established around 1000 BCE, and commencing around 965 BCE[4]. Thus, as the book of Chronicles reveal that the Davidic monarchy lasted until around 590 BCE, it is believed that the story of David as recorded in Samuel within the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated much closer to the successors of David, than to the life of David itself.

Since no textual evidence has been recovered from around the time of David’s life, the question arises as to how such a story was maintained over the years. It is believed that an oral tradition or the transmission of an earlier document was probably the means of conveying information that might have spanned a gap of about 800 years between the life of David and the Dead Sea Scrolls that assert David’s life[5]. For this reason, viewing Biblical texts as historically factual documents need to be treated appropriately.

For example, the books of Samuel contain two different accounts that both seem to describe David's first meeting with Saul. In the first of these, Saul calls for David because David is skilled on the lyre (1 Samuel 16:21). While in the second account, Saul first meets David after David defeats Goliath (1 Samuel 17:56). Contradictions such as these serve to illuminate the likelihood that the narrative of these stories is drawn from
2-5. VanderKam, James C. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Today” pgs. 1, 30, 130-132



two different independent sources[6].
More problematic for the historic value of these biblical texts is the fact that texts, as they contemporarily exist, have been exhaustively subject to revision and redaction many times over[7]. Although it is uncertain why such revisions are made, it is possible to believe that authors put forward narratives which correlate with their own agenda[8]. Thus, while discovering original documents dated to the time of David would seem to be helpful in providing accurate information regarding the life of David, the problem still remains that these original documents would still present an authoritative bias. Archeologically, aside from ancient scrolls, city ruins dating back to the time of the kingship of David have also been recovered. Most recently, archeologists have excavated and recovered ancient traces of Jerusalem[9]. Archeologist William G. Dever, points to architectural similarities of these cities built in what would have been David's kingdom of Israel in relation to the Biblical records of architecture when evaluating the validity of the Biblical narrative[10]. As architectural evidence reveals, recovered ancient cities ruins resemble that of the infrastructure built by David as recorded in the Bible (1 Kings 9:15-16). However, Dever attributes the architecture of the cities' gates and other evidences reflecting those written in the Bible as "convergences" with the biblical portrayal, and not necessarily direct proofs of the historical accuracy of the Bible. [11]
6. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative: Intro. Pg.x
7. Aageson, James W. “In the Beginning: Critical Concepts for the Study of the Bible” pg.30
8. Brettler, Marc Z., “Chapter 1: Defining History, Ideology and Literature” pg. 13
9,10,11. Dever,William G. “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?”pgs. 54(9),199(10),99(11)

In reconstructing a timeline in evaluating when David lived, particular genealogies as well as records of the reigns of various Hebrew kings, as contained in the books of Samuel and Kings, and repeated in Chronicles, are well-established and reliable for constructing a Biblical timeline. Thus it is said, that the consecutive reigns of these Davidic kings, each of whom is explicitly named in the Bible, form the historical “framework” of Biblical chronology, and date from around 1000 BCE to the end of the united monarchy in around 600BCE. [12]

Also, the record of the kingship of David has been confirmed by extra-biblical inscriptions[13]. Although these extra-biblical sources only provide a fragment of information into the life of David, three inscriptions are obviously relevant[14]. The first form of extra-biblical evidence for the life of David is from an Egyptian Pharaoh; the second is from a Moabite king; while the third is from an Armenian king.

First, mention of David is found in an inscription of Pharaoh Shoshenq I (called Shishaq in the Bible), and is dated to around 900 BCE. This inscription dated to about forty years after David's death as recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles. [15]
A second inscription, the Mesha Stele, attributed to the Moab dynasty around 850 BCE, also refers to the "house of David”. However, this stone in which the inscription has been scribed is partially broken. This makes the Mesha Stele less reliable as an extra-biblical account and is often ignored by archeologists and scholars alike. [16]
12. Dever, pg. 162
13. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. “Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions” pg. 266
14. Na’aman, Nadav, “In Search of Reality Behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors” pg. 203
15. Kitchen, K. "A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century B.C.E.” pgs. 29–44
16. Jones, Floyd Nolen, “The Chronology of the Old Testament” pg. 196

This makes the Mesha Stele less reliable as an extra-biblical account and is often ignored by archeologists and scholars alike. [16]

A third mention of King David is found in an Armanean inscription of the Tel Dan Stele. The Tel Dan Stele provides extra-Biblical evidence of David's existence as well as David’s kingship and dynasty. Dated to the period from the ninth to eighth century bce and attributed to an Aramean king, the Tel Dan Stele is a record of the killing of an Israelite soldier. The Tel Dan Stele states: "I killed Yahu of the House of David”. As the inscription has been analyzed, it is accepted by a majority of scholars as confirming the existence in the 9th/8th century bce Davidic dynasty.[17]

Thus, the greatest extra-biblical evidence of King David is the Tel Dan Stele. The Tel Dan stele inscription was carved in stone during the 9th or 8th centuries BCE (Mykytiuk 110). The Tel Dan stele presents David as a king, and the founder of a dynasty called "the house of David". This inscription agrees with the Biblical presentation of David as a king who founded a dynasty called "the house of David". Thus, as extra-Biblical evidence gives credit to the existence of a King David, the question is not whether the Biblical David existed, but rather, to what extent did the many accounts, stories, and details presented about David in the Bible actually occur.




16. Jones, Floyd Nolen, “The Chronology of the Old Testament” pg. 196
17. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. pg. 94
In the Bible, the life of David is summarized through stories, lineages, and psalms. As recorded in the Bible, David is illustrated as a shepherd, a prolific warrior, a righteous king, a musician, and a poet. Outlined as a heroic figure, the narration concerning David illuminates a man graced with success and plagued with sin. The Bible lists David’s family, descendents, and adversaries; God’s choosing of David, and God’s
promises made to David; and most significantly, David’s characteristics of righteousness and sinfulness.

Within the books of Samuel, a story is told by which God had withdrawn his favor from King Saul and sent the prophet Samuel to Jesse of Bethlehem, "for I have provided for myself a king among his sons” (1 Samuel 16). The choice of succession of Saul’s kingship fell upon David, the youngest of Jesse’s son’s. Thus, the Lord commanded the prophet Samuel, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he” (1 Samuel 16:12). David was a shepherd at this point of the story, and when David was first called upon by God he was guarding his father's sheep.

Under Saul, the Israelites were facing the army of the Philistines. While David catered to his brothers (who were with Saul), David heard that the Philistine champion (the giant warrior Goliath) had challenged the Israelites to send out their own champion to decide the outcome of the war in a single combat (1 Samuel 17:8). Upon hearing this, David volunteered for combat (1 Samuel 17:32).

Although highly unlikely that a mere shepherd would defeat a giant warrior, David insisted that he could defeat Goliath. Upon hearing this, Saul sent for David. Saul was doubtful of David’s ability, but never the less allowed David to fight the Philistine. Miracously, David defeated Goliath with a stone and a sling (1 Samuel 17:49). After David had killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, and the Israelites regained their territory.

Upon returning to Saul, David was rewarded by Saul, and Saul gave David his daughter in marriage and set him in command over his armies (1 Samuel 18:27). David was the commander over thousands of Israelite troops, and David was also successful in many battles.

David became very popular amongst the Israelites, and this popularity created jealousy and fear within Saul: "What more can he have but the kingdom?" (1 Samuel 18:8) thought Saul. Thus, Saul sought to kill David. Saul’s plots to kill David were futile, and reversely for Saul, David’s popularity amongst the Israelites grew. Even Saul’s own son, Jonathon, began to love David (1 Samuel 18). Jonathan’s love of David prompted Jonathon to tell David of his father’s plot to kill David. David thus fled, and sought refuge in the wilderness (1 Samuel 23:24).

While in the wilderness, David met an Amalekite soldier who claimed to have killed Saul (2 Samuel 1:13-16). Upon hearing this, David killed the Amalekite soldier for killing an anointed king. David mourned and sang of lament for Saul (2 Samuel 1:17-18). Interestingly, the extra-Biblical Shoshenq inscription referring to David had been retrieved from the Negev region where David sought refuge[18].

Leaving the wilderness, David went to into Judah where he was anointed as King (2 Samuel 2:4). At this time, the successor of Saul in Israel was Ish-bosheth. As David ruled the south, and Ish-bosheth ruled the north, a long war between Israel and Judah was
waged (2 Samuel 3:1). David’s southern kingdom of Judah grew stronger, while Ish
bosheth’s Israel weakened. Ish-bosheth was eventually assassinated, and David achieved rule over both Judah and Israel. Anointed King, David united Southern Judah with Northern Israel into one Kingdom (2 Samuel 8:15).

Upon uniting the Kingdom, David conquered Jerusalem as his capital (2 Samuel 5:9). David further brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, with the intent of erecting a temple around the Ark (2 Samuel 15:24-29). Interestingly later in Chronicles, although David had been loyal to God, God had forbid David to build a temple during his kingship (1 Chronicles 28:3). God told David, through the prophet Nathan, that the temple was to be erected under a future generation. God did however grant a great blessing unto David. God promised David that David’s “throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16). Under David’s rule, David extended his kingdom into Zobah, Moab, Philistine, Edom, and Aram (2 Samuel 8:12).

David ruled over Israel for forty years (seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three

18. Kitchen, K. pg. 33

years in Jerusalem) (1 Kings 2:11). David died at an old age (unspecified) as a rich and honored king. Following David’s rule, Solomon (David’s son) assumed Kingship (1 Chronicles 23).

The origins of the lineage of David is explained in the book of Ruth (Ruth 4:18-22). This lineage draws David back to being a descendant of Judah (Genesis 28:29). As David’s lineage remains vague unto this day, Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be a descent of David (Matthew 1:1), and even in modern times, the Ethiopian King Haile Selassie has been recognized as a descent from David[19].

It is recorded that David had eight wives: Michal, Eglah, Abital, Haggith, Maachah, Abigail, Ahinoam, and Bathsheba (1Chronicles 3). David also had an unspecified number of concubine, some of which he had children with. It is recorded in 1 Chronicles, that David had 19 sons, and at least one daughter.

Aside from being a impeccable warrior, David had a corruptible soul. While married to the daughter of Saul, David infatuated with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (whom fought in David’s army), slept with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3, 4). Through this act, David impregnated Batsheba, and ultimately created a very difficult situation to cleanse himself from. Thus, David placed Uriah in the front lines of battle, and commanded Uriah’s comrades to abandon Uriah in battle so he would be killed (2 Samuel 11:15).
19. Brueggemann, Walter. “Solomon” pg. 236
And so, David’s murderous scheme was achieved. Uriah was killed in battle, and David married Bathsheba and had a son (2 Samuel 11:27). Although apparently cleared of any wrong doing, the prophet Nathan spoke out against David’s actions. David was compelled to repent, but God still punished David, killing David and Bathsheba’s child (2 Samuel 12:14). After the killing of his child, David was forgiven by God, and promised that, "the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die." (2 Samuel 12:13)

Interestingly, in this story recorded about David and Bathsheba, David's transgression against God seemed to be more a matter of having (deceitfully) murdered Uriah rather than his adultery with Bathsheba. This is important to note because of the implications “spilling blood” had in the eyes of God. God’s condemnation of David was a condemnation of David’s violent actions. And as later recorded in Chronicles, David’s violent character was reason for God to reject the erection of the temple under David’s rule.

However, although David had been violently portrayed in the Bible, David’s role was not only of war, but also of worship. Traditionally, the authorship of the Psalms is attributed to David. Since the Psalms were not written down before the 6th century BCE, nearly three hundred years after David's life, like the historic books about David, the psalms must have been transmitted orally or transmitted through earlier (undiscovered) writings for any of David’s psalms to have survived[20]. Only seventy-three of the one hundred and fifty psalms collected in the book of Psalms are actually introduced

20. Alter, Robert. “The Art of Biblical Poetry” pg. 207
attributing authorship to David. Thus the other psalms are believed to have been written by David’s choir members: Jeduthun, Asaph, and the sons of Korah. The Psalms however are not the only source of David’s poetry. For example, 2 Samuel also contains poetry of David.

As a Religious figure, David not only united the Northern kingdom of Israel and Southern kingdom of Judah, David also united the ten tribes of Israel (2 Samuel 5:1). The kingship of David allowed him to unite Israel, but proved very problematic for both David, as well as Israel. As foretold in Samuel, if the Israelites accepted a man instead of God as king over their nation, Israel would be doomed (1 Samuel 18). As king, David’s sin reflected upon his people. And thus, David’s sin is in direct opposition to the establishment of a covenant people (Israel) of God. This self rule seems to be repeatedly practiced both before David, and following his rule. This self reliance eventually led to the demise of the kingdom.

Taken into account the prophetic rebukes of an Israelite kingship, and ultimately David’s rebellion in establishing a united monarch, an ideological insurgence within the text seems to reciprocate with the rise and fall of the kingdom. Illuminating actions of disobedience on the part of David, and the overarching affect these actions had on the people, an interwoven ideological responsibility is imbedded in the text. Thus, one must consider the resulting fall and exile of the established kingdoms after David to be one of not only historic, but also ideological relevance. [21]

21. Na’aman pg. 19
This ideological bias becomes significantly more apparent when examining other historic evidence of David. For example, the inscriptions of the Egyptians, Moabites, and Armeneans never imply righteous or sinful implications of David’s rule. Historically rather than ideologically significant, the extra-Biblical inscriptions about David do not
verify the events of David; rather they only confirm David's existence and status as head
of his “House”. Also, when reflecting on the relevant co-existing inscriptions about David dated from this era, it is important to note that these inscriptions did not contain detailed information about individuals foreign to the lives of the scribe[22]. Thus, the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls must be critically analyzed in light of a possible ideological and cultural bias of the indigenous Hebrew scribe. [23]

Historically, the Bible presents the life of David dating from around 1000 BC to 900 BC. Ideologically, the Biblical narrative presents the successes and failures of David. While extra-Biblical evidence makes it clear that the man David existed, the Bible presents a heroic figure: a shepherd, a warrior, a musician, a poet, and a king.







22. Na’aman: pg. 203
23. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Sage, Priest, Prophet” pg. 5

Qohelet

The Qohelet is a Ketuvim writing within the Hebrew Bible (Anderson 4). As the Qohelet is a regarded as wisdom literature (Alter 63), it is presented as didactic poetry (Whybray 20). While constructed pseudo-autobiographically, the Qohelet is congruent with its Biblical context (Millar 21). Distinctive in its investigative style (Millar 21), the Qohelet represents the authors reflections upon the meaning of life. Through observation, investigation, and evaluation of the phenomenon which creates this author’s reality, the author presents the mysteries of life in relation to the realities of God.

The Hebrew word Qohelet, is translated as “to gather” (Blenkinsopp 58). Recognized as wisdom (Heb. Hokam) literature, the Qohelet refers to the wisdom gathered and/or encapsulated in the life of the sage (Heb. Hakam) (Blenkinsopp 9-10). Also, as a man, Qohelet refers to the son of David, and king over Israel in Jerusalem (Ecc: 1:1). Thus, rooted in the theistic constructs of an Israelite sage the Qohelet presents poetic words of wisdom concerning the nature of man in relation to his perception of life.

Using metaphoric figures of speech and reoccurring imagery (such as “under the sun” and “chasing after wind") are examples of the sage’s ‘symbolically conceptual construction’ of life (Blenkinsopp 2). Also, the sage’s use of descriptive terms such as “wise" and "foolish", and "righteous," and "wicked" create an ethical understanding of the author’s environment. The theistic universe is also presented with the reoccurring use of the expression "I perceived" (1:17; 2:14) the creations of Ha Elohim. (Whybray 27).

Illuminating the cyclical nature of the Qohelet, the sage begins his discourse in the affirmation that life is destroyed by the inevitability of death. As such, the Qohelet sage begins his teaching with the same reflection by which he ends his teaching: that all life is vanity. In light of this immediate description of life, the Qohelet sage advises one to make the most of life and to seize the day, for there is no way to secure the future. While the sage clearly promotes the enjoyment of life, he is unable to ascribe real, righteous, or eternal meaning to it. In light of this perceived vanity of life, the sage suggests that one should enjoy the simple pleasures of daily life. Cyclically, the author of the Qohelet comes to this conclusion in the second to last verse of the last chapter: "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" Thus, this work emphatically proclaims that all is "vanity".

"Vanity" is the English translation of the Hebrew term “Hebel” (Koosed 248). Associating "Vapor" or "breath-like" qualities to ‘hebel’ (Millar 1), the sage illustrates ‘enigmatic’ nature of life which hebel represents (Millar 3). As the sage emphasizes how swiftly earthly things pass away, hebel appears to be of transitory nature. Equally, this transient nature of life reflects the human inability to grasp life. Thus, the sage of the Qohelt speaks of human limitation and the frustration caused by the vast gap between God's knowledge and man’s relative ignorance. Ultimately, as described later by the sage, "All" life, which is vanity, refers to all human endeavors, knowledge, and wisdom.

Referring to nature to support his argument of the vanity of human life, the Qohelet sage draws upon the impermanence of existence. "Under the sun", which is used repeatedly by the sage, establishes the sage’s perceptions and observations of life. Using the permanence of the earth as his context, the sage observes that no one is permanent on the earth. The earth remains, but people die. As revealed later, the point is that since man is not permanent it is obvious that his work cannot be either.

The observation of the celestial in relation to the impermanence of man sets the tone and direction of Qohelet's investigation and reflection (Millar 180). The investigated God is ‘transcendent’ from the investigating sage (Whybray 7). Thus, the book creates the paradigm in which “God is in heaven, and you upon earth” (5:2).

Thus, rather introspectively, the sage begins to investigate his own life. Reflecting on his superlative wisdom (1:13), the sage notes that he had made a comprehensive study of all kinds of human activities (1:17). The sage then states that these achievements were a "unhappy business" (1:13). This grievous task by which the sage applied himself to study is graphically communicated as "chasing after wind" (2:11).

Upon evaluation of such a human quest, the sage discovered that such study was inadequate to turn up anything truly meaningful. Also, the sage notes how such accomplishment of greater wisdom had only brought him greater "grief" (1:18). Consequently, the sage relates such grievous study to be no better than "folly" (1:17).

As it is clear from verses 3 and 9 that the sage’s investigation of pleasure was exhaustive, the sage evidently pursued every pleasure available to him (2: 4-10). Thus for the sage, upon investigation of pleasure, he came to the conclusion that it held no ultimate value either (2: 1-2). That is, while it has some temporary, immediate value it does not produce anything permanent or ultimately worthwhile (2:3-11).

Next, the sage turned to an evaluation of labor, his own (2:18-20) as well as that of other people (2:21). Upon reflection, the sage evaluated what happens to the fruits of labor that accumulates over a lifetime of toil. These fruits include money, fame, and happiness. Reflecting on his labor during his lifetime (2:18), in view of what comes of it all, the sage concluded that human labor costs more vexation than it is worth (2:22-23). For the sage this meant that just as one cannot expect significant changes to come out of labour the best one can do is to enjoy its fruits and find some satisfaction in the work itself (3:12). Rather optimistically, this led the sage to make the statement that: in themselves, and rightly used, the basic things of life are sweet and good. (9:7-10)

This reflection upon the fruits of ones labour later leads the sage to designate man to take his life day by day from the hand of God (2:24-26), realizing that God has a fitting time for each thing to be done (3:1-8). The significance of this section is that man is responsible to discern the right times for the right actions; and when he does the right action according to God's time, the result is 'beautiful' (3:11)." Here, when correlated with the will of God, the sage receives life as ‘sweetness’ and ‘beauty’ rather than ‘vanity’. It is here where the sage emphasizes that one should "enjoy themselves" (3:12).

However, the observation of the benefits of aligning man’s works with the timing of God, is reciprocally reviewed in light of man’s actions not align with the God’s time. This, for the sage, is a description of man’s inability to fully comprehend the plans of God (3:14-15). For the sage, man’s inability to fully comprehend what is best for oneself (as they do not know what the future holds) (3:11), is parallel with man’s inability to understand the plan of God.

In regards to righteousness and wickedness (7:15-29), the sage observes that the righteous sometimes do not receive a reward in this life, while the wicked prosper. However, the sage institutes that it is still better to live righteously. This advocation of a righteous, ‘golden mean’ (Whybray 120), of human behavior is in light of the idea that just because God does not consistently punish the wicked (7: 17) that it is all right to abandonment of moral standards.

While chapter eight begins with illustrating the precepts of wisdom (8:1), it ends in showing that wisdom has its imitations. Reflecting on wisdom, the sage observes that wise man behaves appropriately in the presence of his king, He keeps his oath of allegiance that he has made before God (8:2), and he does not resign or revolt against the king (8:3). Upon reflecting on the limits of wisdom, the sage emphasizes how man is ignorant because God has not revealed many things. However, the sage’s emphasis that the remaining mysteries of life (8:16-17) must not diminish human joy (9:1-9) or prevent one from working with all our might (9:10—11:6), as the sage states: "one does not know" (9:1).

In confrontation of such a blissful ignorance, chapter nine presents the message that the reason “no one knows” is because “no one can handle” the vast extent of truth (Whybray 140). For the sage, this vastness of truth includes the uncertainty of life amidst death. As the sage emphasized in 9:2-10 the fact that a righteous person could not be more certain of his or her future than the wicked, the sage uses ‘death’ as an ultimate equalizer. In 9:11-10:11 the sage also uses the death to show how the wise cannot be any more certain of his or her earthly future than the fool. Death is not only a certainty which neither the wise nor the fool can know the timing of, but as known by God, death is all part of God’s plan which neither the wise nor the fool can know.

As the sage advises, this uncertainty of the coming end should be treated cautiously. For the sage, this cautious approach to life, is also reason for responsible living (12: 1-7). This advice offers a sobering reminder to youth who follow their desires with a reminder that God will judge all eventually. Also, as the sage recognized God's judgments before death (7:17), the sage noted "To older people it may seem to be too risky to advise a young person to walk in the ways of his heart and the sight of his eyes”. This precaution foreshadows the expanded ideas of the sage in regards to advancing old age and death.

Within chapter twelve, the Qohelet is full of figures of speech that picture old age and death. The sage likened the evil days of old age approaching like a rainstorm (12:2-3) as it leaves the vessel of life fearful and uncertain. Also, alluding to the broken "golden bowl" and “silver cord”, the sage uses imagery which represents the immediacy and uncertainty in which death will come. When man dies, and lets go of the "silver cord", it unwinds, catches, and snaps; and the golden bowl attached crashes. This figurative example not only represents the immediacy and unexpected coming of death, it also emphasizes the value and fragile nature of life.

Within these sobering didactics, the sage repeats his original thesis (12:8; 1:2) and offers advice in light of life's realities (12:13-14). In between these statements he sets forth his source of authoritative wisdom (12:9-12). The phrase "these collections" (12:11) refers to other wise sayings. It is assumed that all these wise sayings come from God, as "Beyond this" (12:12) refers to ‘beyond’ the wisdom literature that God had revealed. Thus, in regards to life after death, the sage leaves this mystery unto God.

In conclusion, the Qohelet contains a sage’s observation, investigation, and evaluation of life. Key to understanding the reasoning of this sage is to understand the perspective from which he spoke. Qohelet's intent in his writing is to point out the limits and mysteries of life. In light of these mysteries however, the Qohelet sage advises that man "Fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13).




Works Cited


Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry Basic Books, US. 1985.


Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament Pearson Hall, US. 1998


Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet Westminster John Knox Press (UK), 1995


Koosed, Jennifer. “Decomposing Qohelet” in Yvonne Sherwood (ed) Derrida’s Bible Palgrame Macmillan, US 2004


Millar, Douglas B. Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes Society of Biblical Literature, US. 2002


The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins United States: Oxford University Press, 2001


Whybray, R.N. The New Century Commentary: Ecclesiastes Eerdmans Publishing, US. 1989


Zimmermann, Frank. Inner World of Qohelt Ktav Publishing House, US. 1973

Torat Aynayeem

Torat Aynayeem


“And now write for yourselves these words, and teach them to your children.”
Deuteronomy 31:19

In honor of its 75th Anniversary, Edmonton’s Beth Shalom Synagogue is engaging in a year long journey of creating a Sefer Torah. The event entitled, Torat Aynayeem, gives the congregation a unique opportunity of fulfilling the 613th Mitzvah: to write a Sefer Torah. In order to fulfill one’s Halakhic duty, as well as to strengthen the congregation, Beth Shalom is actively engaging itself in being consumed within the Torah.

Earlier this semester, upon commencing my ‘Introduction to Judaism’ course, Dr. Landy offered all of the students in the class the opportunity of writing a research essay or conducting a field report in regards to their own personal interest in Judaism. With an interest in the scribal arts, I was inclined to research the role of the scribe within Judaism. I decided to approach Dr. Landy in regards to writing such an essay, and in turn, Dr. Landy advised that I read Moshe Idel’s ‘Absorbing Perfections’ and Gershom Scholem’s ‘Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism’ in order to get a better understanding of the mystical nature of the Torah and its relationship with the Jewish scribe (Sofer). After investing the mystical nature of the Torah through textual resources, I decided to once again visit Dr. Landy in order to help narrow the focus of my research. Dr. Landy informed me of Beth Shalom’s upcoming Torat Aynayeem event, in which the congregation was setting out to write its own Sefer Torah, and suggested that I contact Beth Shalom in regards to learning more.

Thus, one weekday afternoon I decided to visit Beth Shalom synagogue in hopes of learning more about Torat Aynayeem. I was kindly welcomed and invited to look around in their library. After spending awhile checking out their various texts on Kabbalah and the Torah, the secretary invited me into the office and gave me a very informative pamphlet with information in regards to the event. The Secretary also advised that I check out Beth Shalom’s website in order to learn more about the event. Throughout this field report I continued to feel overwhelmingly welcomed and accommodated with information and help in regards to learning more about Torat Aynayeem.

Within Beth Shalom’s website (http://www.bethshalomedmonton.org/), and within Beth Shalom’s ‘Seeing the Future through our Past’ pamphlet, I was able to gain an understanding of some of the principle aspects of the event. Information regarding the dates of the ceremonies in which the New York based Sofer, Neil Yerman, would visit Beth Shalom, as well as information about Menachem Binit, a Torah scribe in Israel, whom would write the remainder of Beth Shalom’s Torah was provided.

Connecting the dynamics of Beth Shalom’s 21st century Sefer experience with the event upon Mount Sinai 3500 years ago, Torat Aynayeem serves to celebrate the evolution of a community established 75 years ago with the community established among Beth Shalom’s Biblical ancestors. Thus, Torat Aynayeem represents not only a historical, but also a spiritual link in the chain of tradition, which engages the individual and the community in immersing themselves within the Torah.

After visiting Beth Shalom, I once again met with Dr. Landy whom further encouraged me to contact Beth Shalom’s Rabbi Kunin, in regards to learning more about Torat Aynayeem. Writing Rabbi Kunin proved to be a rewarding experience as he was quick to reply. Rabbi Kunin suggested we arrange a time when we could meet so I could get a one on one opportunity to learn more about the event. Preparing to meet the Rabbi, I wrote out various questions in regards to the nature of the Torah and its production. I was interested in the 'halakah'/'mitzvah' of the event (fulfilling the 613th commandment), the ‘safrut'/'regulations' of the Torah's production, and in particular, I was interested in the auspicious meaning of the 70 Eyes of Aynayeem, and what this number and symbolism represent.

Upon meeting with Rabbi Kunin, relatively a week or so later, I was amazed to learn that I would have the opportunity to listen to a lecture given by the visiting Sofer, Neil Yerman. Sofer Yerman provided an insurmountable amount of information in regards to the journey of scribal engagement Beth Shalom was to experience. Consequentially, I also had the opportunity to witness Neil, as well as many of the members of Beth Shalom write in the Torah. Accompanied by prayers and song, Neil provided an insightful perspective into the scribal tradition of writing a Sefer Torah.

Neil Yerman began his presentation by addressing the Goose feathers which would be used in scripting the Sefer Torah (although he had noted American Wild Turkey feathers were equally valid). Neil Yerman then went on to describe the daily activities of the scribe. Sofer Yerman stressed that meditation, prayer, and contemplation, coupled with mitzvah, cutting the quills, and preparing the parchment were all part of a 2 hour preparation necessary for the scribe to mentally and spiritually connect with the text.

Thus, Sofer Yerman explained that the tasks before a day of writing are a complete dedication of oneself to the traditions and history of Judaism. In consideration of the interaction a Sofer encounters during scribal engagement, when setting out the order of the day, the Sofer must establish with whom they will be communicating with during their emersion within the text. Yerman also noted that even the solitary Sofer was in communion with various ‘beings’ during the scribal excercise. Thus, upon alluding to the supernatural reality which surrounds the scribal practice, Sofer Yerman addressed the assembly and asked, ‘with whom will you be communicating’.

Noting how the last commandment of the Torah, the 613th (although arguably not the exact amount), is to ‘write these teachings and teach them to your children’, Yerman explained how he understand such a commandment. In emphasis of writing the words of the Torah, and putting the words of the Torah in the children Israel’s mouths, one should know all the rules, statutes, and ordinances of the 304 805 hand written letters so well that the stories which these letters compose should be just ready to come out in teaching. Drawing upon the reality that Beth Shalom’s Sefer Torah will include every single letter that is existent within the oldest surviving Torah in Alexanderia Egypt (some 1400 years old), Yerman emphasized how one should consider that what they would write in the Torah that day would be considerably different than anything they would have written in the past.

In emphasis of such an acute awareness, Sofer Yerman explained how the letters which have survived 3300 years since Sinai, and which are still on the lips of Israel, survived by the millions of peoples and thousands of generations whom preserved these teachings for others. After Sofer Yerman had related the scribal event to an ancient history, Yerman quickly added how the congregation should write even for children who were being born that morning.

Yerman explained, as had been taught for many generations, and by many sages, that ‘for one who has written one letter in the Torah it is as if they have written the whole Torah themselves’. Yerman explained that this is true because of the sanctity of the Torah, and how if one letter is missing, it is not a true Torah. Thus, without the congregation’s contribution, Beth Shalom’s Sefer Torah would not be a whole, living Torah. Thus, the congregational act of writing a Torah serves as a connection between future generations and all those whom have went before.

Then, writing on a scrap piece of paper, Sofer Yerman wrote the name ‘Amelek’ and then continued to blot it out. This act of blotting out the name ‘Amelek’ has ritual significance as it relates to blotting out all the enemies of Israel throughout all time (Deut: 25:15); as well as blotting out anger, resentment, bias, and prejudice within one’s own heart. Thus, as the Sofer is commanded to love (Deut. 6:5, ‘and you shall love’), a Sofer must always write with love and thanksgiving to God for teaching one’s hands to write the letters of Torah.

Also, Sofer Yerman explained that it is a scribal rule that if one writes the Holy Name, the Tetragrammaton, absent mindedly, or without the appropriate blessing, one would have to rewrite the word. Relating the experience of writing to the sharing of breath that was given to Adam and Eve, in scripting the Holy Name without vowels, one is honoring the divine breath and alluding to the reverence one must have in saying the Holy Name. Sofer Yerman then explained how some scribes actually sing out every letter of the Torah while they are writing, while many other scribes reverently write in silence.

Drawing upon such a scribal journey, Sofer Yerman recognized that when one is approaching the end of the Torah, one is always looking ahead to the beginning. Similarly, when one writes a single letter of the Torah, ‘et’ for example, one must recognize that even though the letter ‘et’ in and of itself might seem like it has no meaning or translation, ‘et’ symbolically signifies ones journey within the Torah. As ‘et’ represents the first and last letters of the ‘alephet’, ‘et’ symbolically represents the generations of the past and future for whom the Torah is written.

This ability to link generations through the Torah experience is deeply significant in the sense that the congregational engagement in writing is an act of honoring Biblical ancestors. Yerman stressed that such connections are deep and the connections are in the millions. Yerman reminded everyone that Biblical history would not be possible if even one single letter is missing from the Torah. Thus, like the Jewish characters within the Bible, the Hebrew letters are ‘ancient beings’ encountered anew by the community as they are written.

At the end of the lecture, Neil Yerman invited men and women, young and old, to engage in writing a letter in the Torah. As Sofer Yerman guided the hand of the new scribe, members wrote their experience, prayers, and reverence into Beth Shalom’s Scroll. Neil Yerman concluded the ceremony by explaining that the Life of the Torah will teach for centuries, and included in ‘Her’ teachings will be an inherent blessing for all who have contributed to the spirit and knowledge of the Torah. Thus, it is from Beth Shalom’s heart, to ‘Her’ heart, to the hearts of all of Israel in which a blessing is shared.

In regards to the auspicious title of Torat Aynayeem (Seventy Eyes of the Torah), following Yerman’s lecture, I approached Rabbi Kunin in order to learn what such a title means. Rabbi Kunin explained that the Hebrew letter ‘ayin’ equates to the number 70 and represents aynayeem, one’s eyes, and the letter ‘hay’ equates to the number 5 and represents the 5 books of Torah. Thus, as Torat Aynayeem celebrates the 75th anniversary of Beth Shalom, Torat Aynayeem also allows one an opportunity to look back on where the congregation has been and to look ahead to where it is going; all through the eyes of the Torah.

In conclusion, drawing upon my interest in Sofer practice, Torat Aynayeem not only allowed me to learn more about the necessary preparations, prescribed rituals, and religious significance of writing a Torah, it also allowed me to learn about the ancient connections and sustaining spirituality which maintains such a Jewish legacy. Neil Yerman’s lecture really helped me develop a better understanding concerning the meaning the Torah in regards to its relationship with the individual, the congregation, and the ancestry from which it evolved. Engaging the congregation to connect with the past, present, and future through writing, Torat Aynayeem not only serves to bring together the community of Beth Shalom, it also serves to bring together the entire community of ‘spirits’ and ‘beings’ within Judaism.

Scriptural Syncretism

Scriptural Syncretism

The Qur'an is the sacred text of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the revealed word of God. Muslims regard the Qur’an as God's final revelation to humankind and view it as possessing the divine presence of God (Nasr 9). Contextually, the Qur’an also refers to other scripture which has presented prophets and religions revealing the existence of God. Thus, in revelation of these extra-Qur’anic scriptures, the Qur’an is a syncretic record of revelation.

As the Qur’an reflects, the Qur'an is the revealed recitation of God to Mohammed. Revealed to Mohammed over a period of twenty-three years, the Qur’an was handed down to Mohammed from God through the angel Gabriel. Contextually, within the Qur’an itself, an onslaught of refrences to other prophets, scriptures, and religions are made. The Qur’an considers the monotheistic faiths that preceded it, Judaism and Christianity in particular, to be true in their original form. However, the Qur’an also states that the religions of Judaism and Christianity have been corrupted as their followers have turned away from their sacred texts (5:43). Thus, within this poly-prophetic/scriptural/religious text, the Qur’an installs Islam as the only true path for following the will of God.

As the Qur’an states; "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar (2:106), the Qur’an serves as another scripture containing the word of God. As the Quran refers unto itself as "discernment", it claims that it upholds that which is truth in the Bible and rejects what is falsehood.

And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'an) in truth, confirming and discerning the Scripture that came before it. (5:48)

Some believe that Qur'an and Bible have the same source and that any differences from absolute similarities would mean that the previous message had been corrupted (Ayoub 15). However, this commonly held belief about the corruption of the Biblical text is not supported by the Qur'an itself. Nowhere within the Qur'an is there a distinguishment between the Zabur and the Biblical Psalms of David, or between the Taurat and the Pentateuch, or between the Injil and the New Testament. It never advocates that the original books of the Prophets associated with Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus have been lost or have been textually distorted. The Qur’an asserts that the books to which it refers remain in the possession of the Jews and Christians, and continuing to be the authoritative holy scripture as:

“there is none who can change His words"
(6:115)

Thus, like the monotheistic message of pre-Quranic texts, the Qur’an maintains a message of Taweed. In Islam, Taweed signifies the unity of God. Dualistically, opposed to Taweed is shirk, which means "division" (this commonly refers to idolatry). In profession of taweed, and in opposition to shirk, the Qur’an states:

Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him. (112:1-4)

It is interesting how a text with such a profession of Monotheism can attest to other prophets, scriptures, and religions. Contextually, the Qur’an makes reference to at least twenty-four prophets other than Mohammad (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Hud, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Shoaib, Moses, Aaron, Ezekiel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zecharias, John, and Jesus). The Qur’an also refers to at least four scriptures other than the Qur’an (The Prophetic Writings of Abraham, Taurat, Zabur, Injil), and at least two other religions apologetic to one God (Judaism and Christianity).

We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to other prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam). (3:84).

As scripture, the Qur’an is authoritative and a source of discernment by which all other scripture should be judged.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion of judgment between right and wrong. (3:3)
As the Qur’an frequently references Christianity and Judaism, the Qur’an regards this diversity of religions as created by Allah:

For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another; to Allah is your return, of all (of you) (5:48).

Like the message of the Bible, the message of the Qur'an has been formulated in strong opposition to polytheism and idolatry. This is evident in its frequent assertion against polytheistic religions in stating "there is no god except He." Furthermore, the Qur’an states that to associate anything or anyone with God is an unforgivable sin.

“Verily, God does not forgive the ascribing of divinity to aught beside Him”
(4:116)

The Qur’an focuses on the similarities between the beliefs of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism stressing the universality of revelation and seeing each religious scripture as a reflection of the same truth. The Qur’an goes even so far as to confirm other scripture:

In truth We have sent the Quran to you, confirming all the previous heavenly books that were revealed before you and bearing witness to them. (5:48)

However, other Qur’anic examples stress the differences between Islam and the Judeo-Christian community. These examples stress the obligation of Muslims community holding beliefs like the necessity of bringing unbelievers back to the "Straight Path" of Islam. In the Qur’an, calling one back unto their faith, and in return being rejected upon such a request, is a way in which Muslims find distinction.

Say, 'People of the Book! come to a proposition which is the same for us and you - that we should worship none but Allah. ' If they turn away, say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims.'(3:64)

In regards to other religions, the Quran holds Christians and Jews in high regard. In regards to Christianity, the Qur’an states:

You will find the people most affectionate in those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because they are not arrogant. (5:82)

However, within surah 112, the Qur’an states that God neither begets nor is begotten. Thus, as the Qur’an alludes to: any Christian belief in the divine sonship of Jesus is a perversion of the nature of God. Also, another Qur’anic allusion is the bases that any Christian belief that Jesus was also God incarnate is also heretical. The Qur’an further emphasizes how attributing Jesus with such characteristics is in fact implying beliefs which Jesus himself rejected.

The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for Allah is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son.

The followers of Jesus went astray by worshipping Jesus as God and belief of the doctrine Trinity.
(4:171)

Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said: “God is the Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary”. Jesus said: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord”
(5:72)

In regards to Judaism, the Quran recognizes Jews holding fast to true submission. As the Qur’an states:

They recite Allah's Signs throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves before the Lord. They enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the salihun. You will not be denied the reward for any good thing you do. Allah knows those who fear God.
(3:113-115)

Also according to the Qur'an, Moses preached the pure Islamic doctrine (Ibrahim 34). However, the Qur’an states that the Jews like the followers of Moses have strayed from strict monotheism. A Qur’anic example of this is how like the followers of Moses perversely worshipped the Golden Calf, so to have Jews followed other Gods.

As the Qur’an holds Christians and Jews in high regard, the Qur’an also extends inclusiveness towards the Sabeans and Mandeans:

Those with Faith (Sabeans and Mandeans) who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (2:62).

As the Qur'an draws upon similarities between those with faith and Muslims, the Qur’an also distinguishes Muslims and those with true faith, from polytheists or idolaters. However inclusive the Qur’an is towards those whom belief in one God, the Qur’an does not profess the same degree of tolerance towards polytheists. Thus, the Qur’an states:

Those who reject his message, when the truth of the message has reached them, are promised to be doomed to a fiery hell on the Day of Judgement (29:68)

Although it might seem that God is intolerable of unbelievers, the Qur'an teaches that God has sent prophets to other peoples, foreign to the Abrahamic prophetic tradition, revealing the true religion of Islam. Thus, the Qur'an states:

And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. (9:6)

As the Qur’an states: Your Lord knows best who is misguided from His way (16:125), the Qur’an presents an omniscient God. Equally, this Qur’anic passage presents not only an omniscient God, but also an omniscient God who rewards the humble regardless of religion. The conformation of true submission to God seems to lie in the humility of man, which only God can see. Thus, the Qur’an not only illustrates a level of equality for man aside from religious traditions, the Qur’an also honours man aside from religious affiliation:

O Mankind, Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (49:13)

In conclusion, the Qur’an seems to present itself as the “final testament” within it’s scriptural syncretism. Presenting Islam as a monotheistic religion, it is important to recognize the unity of religion which the Qur’an also presents. The Qur’an makes it apparent that God has not revealed His essence in opposition to previous religions, but through many prophets, scriptures, and religions God has expressed the same fundamental truth. Thus, the Qur’an reveals:

'Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him.'
(29:46)