Is Dabru Emet the Jewish Nostra Aetate? Sic et Non
by Rabbi David Fox Sandmel
Although documents on interreligious relations are rarely of interest to mainstream media, Dabru Emet immediately garnered a lot of attention. Some reporters compared it to the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate (part 4) from 1965. The invocation was understandable, given Nostra Aetate‘s paradigmatic status—although a Roman Catholic document, it has come to symbolize the revolution in thinking about Jews and Judaism after the Shoah among Christians in general.
Both the authors of Dabru Emet and those of us at ICJS took great pains at the time to draw clear distinctions between the two documents. The authors were crystal clear that they were “(s)peaking only for [them]selves—an interdenominational group of Jewish scholars,” while Nostra Aetate was a magisterial document of the Roman Catholic Church. Highlighting the self-conscious rejection of any institutional “authority” in what was then a brand new and provocative document was both an understandable and appropriate reaction. Another central message was that the changes in Christianity to which Dabru Emet was responding were not limited to the Roman Catholic Church; comparing the statement to Nostra Aetate might obscure the important contributions from the Protestant world, some of which predated the Second Vatican Council.
Twenty years on, the matter has been complicated by factors other than authority; today I believe that the comparison is apt. There remain, of course, a myriad of differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish community and between the two documents themselves. That having been said, the two documents share certain characteristics in both symbolic and practical terms.
In September 2000, we did not know how Dabru Emet would be received. I think it is now fair to say that, at least within the specialized world of Jewish–Christian relations, Dabru Emet has achieved an analogous status to that of Nostra Aetate, the aforementioned differences notwithstanding. Nostra Aetate has come to represent all of Christianity’s post-Shoah reconsideration of its relationship to the Jews; since its publication, Dabru Emet has come to represent the Jewish reconsideration of post-Shoah Christianity.
Several factors have contributed to this status. Even though the authors of Dabru Emet made clear that they had no formal institutional authority, the authors, along with the signers, represented a broad swath of the Jewish religious world, including leading scholars and Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and (a limited number) of modern Orthodox rabbis. For some readers, both Jewish and Christian, the number, reputation, institutional affiliation, and diversity of the authors and signers do impart a kind of authority to the document, albeit informal and unofficial. None of the subsequent Jewish documents boasts such broad representation, although Between Jerusalem and Rome (2016) does have the institutional backing of three major Orthodox organizations.
Additionally, the publication of Dabru Emet was a “first,” which in and of itself imparts a certain status. Although Nostra Aetate was not the first post-war Christian document to address the Jews, it was the first Vatican document. The broader significance of the Council as a historic reorientation of the Roman Catholic Church ensured that it was closely watched by the press, which in turn contributed to Nostra Aetate’s iconic status. Although not nearly at the same scale, Dabru Emet also received a lot of media attention due in part to a concerted public relations campaign and its publication as a full-page ad in the Sunday edition of The New York Times. No subsequent Jewish or Christian document on the subject attracted similar coverage.
Another similarity is that neither Nostra Aetate for Catholics nor Dabru Emet for Jews was intended to be the final word. As Michael Signer wrote in his paper “Dabru Emet: Sic et Non” (2002)[1]: “Dabru Emet is an initial statement…. We hope that there will be other statements made by other Jewish groups about Christians and Christianity.” The initial publication of Dabru Emet engendered a lively discussion in the Jewish community and in interfaith circles, and it is regularly referenced as a milestone in Jewish–Christian relations. Subsequently, especially in conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of Nostra Aetete, Jews have, unsurprisingly, produced additional documents on Jewish–Christian relations reflecting a variety of perspectives, but each in its own way responding to and differentiating itself from Dabru Emet. In a parallel fashion, the Roman Catholic Church continues to issue documents on Catholic–Jewish relations, all of which rely on Nostra Aetate, while Catholic theologians continue to explore its implications. The anniversary of Nostra Aetate has become a moment for celebration and reflection.
This symposium represents an analogous commemoration not only of the anniversary of Dabru Emet but of what it has come to represent since its initial publication: the “formal recognition” by “the Jewish community” (both of which should be understood in the loosest of terms) of the profound changes, referenced in the preamble to Dabru Emet, that have taken place in much of the Christian world since the Shoah.
Sic et non. Dabru Emet cannot be compared to Nostra Aetate because of essential differences between the documents themselves and between the communities that produced them. And yet, together, they have come to epitomize the dialogue that characterizes Jewish–Christian relations today.
[1] Ever the medievalist, Signer’s use of “Sic et Non” (literally “yes and no”) in his paper delivered at the first meeting of the Council of Centers of Jewish–Christian Relations is a reference to Abelard’s (1079-1142) work of the same title, which addresses resolving contradictions in the writings of the Church Fathers.
Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, Ph.D., is the Director of Interfaith Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League. He was the Jewish Scholar at ICJS from 1998-2001, and managed the publication of Dabru Emet, Christianity in Jewish Terms (2000), and Irreconcilable Differences: A Learning Resource for Christians and Jews (2001).