Hugh Schonfield: A Case Study of Complex Jewish Identities

By Owen Power and Richard S. Harvey

With this book, Owen Power offers the first full-length intellectual history of the thinker Hugh Schonfield (1901-1988). Power contextualises Schonfield and his work in the spheres of Jewish ideology and Messianic Jewish politics as a means to explain the complicated nature of Messianic Jewish identity. There are many problems in making sense of the varied claims made about the Jewishness of Jewish Believers in Jesus--as there is a striking lack of agreement as to their Jewish status among halakhic authorities--and there is no real consensus among Messianic Jews themselves in answering the question, "Who is a (Messianic) Jew?" On the other hand, the attitude of many Jewish commentators regarding Messianic Jews is that they are traitors and apostates pretending to be Jews--Christian missionaries hell-bent on enticing Jews from their communities to the welcoming embrace of the Church. Normative Jewish opinion tends to treat Jewish Believers in Jesus as a monolithic group and thus fails to recognise the wide range of groups and individuals who claim to be Messianic Jews, even if there is among them little consensus as to what such a label means. Schonfield's case both reinforces such convictions and problematizes them.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Mar 13, 2013
• ISBN: 9781621895961

Owen Power

Owen Power worked for many years in London as a training manager delivering skills training to people who were long-term unemployed with additional support needs. He served as a diversity & equality advisor on a number of government social projects and produced an audio information cassette on safer sex and HIV awareness for people without sight for World AIDS Day 1992. In 2001, Power decided upon a career change and he started studying at the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester. His first book, Hugh Schonfield, is based on his dissertation. Power is currently researching his second book with the working title--Jewish Believers in Jesus: Christians Masquerading as Jews?

Book preview

Chapter 1

Introducing the Book

The book is an attempt to explain the theology of the thinker Hugh Schonfield (1901–1988) as a means to explore the complicated nature of Messianic Jewish identity. It represents the first, full-length intellectual history of Schonfield and it tries to contextualize him and his work in the spheres of Jewish ideology, Messianic Jewish politics, and interfaith studies more generally.

Arguably, complex and hybrid religious identities represent a modern phenomenon that pose enormous challenges for interfaith relations. The necessity of understanding another’s theological perspective is vital in our multicultural communities today. While many theologies have defined themselves traditionally in terms of an essence or unchanging core, modern religious scholarship has become increasingly interested in those emerging systems of belief that demonstrate a fluidity and sophisticated synthesis of identity components, for these potentially offer great insight into the ways in which theological and socio-religious interactions can be harmonized. While there is a considerable amount of scholarship that addresses the development and theology of Messianic Judaism in the modern period, these tend to be written largely in the abstract and gloss over many of the complexities of this highly fragmented world of religious syncretism. The two most comprehensive studies to date (by Carol Harris-Shapiro and Dan Cohn-Sherbok) are cases in point, and dedicated studies of individual Messianic Judaisms are rare and tend to be written by interested parties. This book is an analysis of Messianic Judaism by means of closely reading one prolific author and well-known proponent, Hugh Schonfield.

Chapter 2 will focus on Schonfield himself and his beliefs. By evaluating Schonfield’s key ideas on God, messianism, the Bible, the apostle Paul, Jesus, and Jewish Christianity from the perspectives of normative Judaism and Messianic Judaism, it will be seen that his views on Judaism and Jewish identity raise problems for a contemporary understanding of the answer to the question, who is a Jew? A key error to be addressed is the practice common to many Jewish commentators that equates Messianic Judaism with the organization Jews for Jesus, thus ignoring the diversity within the label Messianic Judaism. Likewise, it will be suggested that the widespread belief that Jewish believers¹ are Christians masquerading as Jews, and that this is in effect a missionary ploy, is once again to misrepresent the complexity of Messianic Judaism. At the same time, this study will try to show that some of the most prominent Messianic Jewish scholars, including Jakob Jocz, Richard Harvey, and David Stern, overemphasize Schonfield’s heterodox views, and, as a result, miss the shocking significance of Schonfield’s own messianic claims.

Chapter 3 will focus on mapping out the framework in which a discussion of Schonfield’s complex Jewish identity can be had. An important part of the argument will be that, from a religio-legal perspective, the Jewish status of Jewish believers in Jesus is not clear, since there are, broadly speaking, three ways of defining Jewishness or Jewish identity. Some halakhic authorities maintain that a Jewish believer is a Jew if his or her mother is a Jew; other authorities agree with this on the condition that they are Torah observant, while others insist they are not Jews, but rather apostates who have chosen to desert the Jewish community. In contrast to such halakhic approaches, a more sociological approach provides a much less ambiguous view by focusing on the rationale of wider Jewish social attitudes and Israeli legal judgments: broadly speaking, Jewish believers in Jesus are regarded as Christians, and the history of the interaction with Christianity demands the dismissal of any claim they are Jews. The association with Christian missionary activities will lead us to explore the role of evangelical Christians within individual messianic communities, who are usually Gentile, which represents a further complication in terms of understanding Messianic Jewish communities as Jewish.

A Short, Theoretical Discussion

on the Complexities of Jewish Identity

Ronald Lipman in his study on Jewish Identity uses the extreme case of the Beta Israel (the Black Jews of Ethiopia) to explore the problem of Jewish identity.² The present case study attempts to use another extreme case, Hugh Schonfield, to explore the problem of Jewish identity and Jewish believers in Jesus in an attempt to understand why Jews reject the claims from Jewish believers that they are Jews. Schonfield is often seen as a maverick figure, but this study argues Messianic Judaism is a diverse movement, so there is no normative Messianic Jewish identity, and the claims by Jewish believers that they are Jews cannot be treated as if they are all the same. On the surface, it might seem as if there is nothing particularly complex about Schonfield’s identity status, as according to halakhah (Jewish Law), since his mother was Jewish he was a Jew. It also seems as if Schonfield’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah is not an issue because in the context of halakhah, Jewish identity is inalienable regardless of whether Schonfield is a Jewish believer in Jesus or not. But there are problems with this view because according to some halakhic authorities, in order to maintain Jewish identity a Jew is obligated to keep the Law.³On that basis it would seem that all Jews except for Orthodox Jews and those Jewish believers in Jesus who keep the Law are excluded, as they are not authentic Jews. But, the problem with this assessment is that Jewish believers in Jesus are considered by many Jews to be apostates, and as Lipman points out there is no consensus among halakhic authorities as to the Jewish status of an apostate.⁴ While some authorities accept that Jewish status acquired through the mother is inalienable on the basis of the well-known ruling even though he has sinned he remains a Jew there is also a body of opinion that holds that an apostate is no longer a Jew.⁵ The Meiri ruled that those who left Judaism and went into another religion are considered members of that other religion in every respect apart from marriage and divorce and their children are gentiles even in matters of marriage and divorce.⁶ For our purposes this is problematic as Schonfield and some Jewish believers claim they have not joined another religion as they are not Christians, or, at least, not Gentile Christians. But they do identify with Jewish Christianity to some extent, although again it is not clear if they are apostates or not as there is no agreement as to what Jewish Christianity is, though it seems likely that few Jews (if any) see it as Judaism. There are other problems with the halakhic definition of a Jew (a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism), such as the required standards of proof of the mother’s Jewishness and how that’s decided. The halakhic definition assumes that one who converted to Judaism has done so with an Orthodox rabbi, so a conversion carried out by a Reform or other non-Orthodox rabbi is not considered valid. Thus, those who have undergone conversion by a Reform rabbi have no status under Jewish Law and they are not Jews. The halakhic definition also excludes a child whose father is a Jew but whose mother is not because, as far as the Rabbinate is concerned, such a child is not a Jew. As Lipman points out, the halakhic definition of Jewish identity is not as absolute and timeless as it claims; for example, it has been argued that the matrilineal definition of Jewishness only came into Judaism in late Second Temple times.⁷ It is Lipman’s contention that in the ruling by the Council of the Chief Rabbinate in 1985 on the negative halakhic opinion of the Falashas’ Jewish identity, no challenge or consideration of the question of whether or not the rabbinic definition of Jewishness is the only definition that applies, or can be defended as such. Lipman observes:

This suggests that behind the legal arguments was a power-play: to have accepted the Falashas as Jewish would have opened up the whole issue of the definition of Judaism and Jewishness, and would have called into question the exclusive right of the Rabbinate to rule on the issue. The Rabbinic claim that the halakhic definition of Jewishness goes back as Oral Torah to Moses on Sinai is simply assumed. It is not put into court, so to speak, as a matter to be discussed, even though historically it is highly questionable.

⁸

Lipman argues that historians and sociologists of law would challenge any claim that any law can be timeless or absolute. He says all law is affected by social forces, both in its formulation and in its interpretation and application. Law is not divorced from society or popular opinion and, as Lipman observes, a principle recognized within halakhah by the concept of minihag (custom).⁹ A second problem Lipman highlights is the lack of structure to the halakhic decision-making process. According to Lipman, halakhic authorities have differed in their assessment of the halakhic Jewishness of the Falashas, as they cannot agree as to whether they conform to halakhah or not. He thinks this has come about because of the structure of the decision-making within Jewish religious law; there is no central religious authority, no Sanhedrin or court of appeal, though there is a well-established principle of following the majority opinion.¹⁰ The problems of Messianic Judaism identity are similar in some ways to that of Falasha identity, but while the Falashas seem to be a single movement (with minor internal divisions), Messianic Judaism is fragmented (although it is treated as a single entity by most Jews). Another way Messianic Judaism differs from the Falashas is while the Rabbinate rules that the Falashas are not Jews and should convert and they should be treated respectfully, on the other hand Jewish believers are given no such consideration.¹¹ It will be argued that the halakhic Jewishness of Schonfield and Jewish believers in Jesus is not clear but, on the other hand, it is very clear that the majority opinion rejects the claims from Jewish believers that they are Jews, and this seems to be reflected in Israeli social law. In the famous Brother Daniel case, which will be discussed later, Justice Silberg argued that the term Jew has a secular connotation, as it is usually understood in common parlance by—and this I emphasize—the ordinary Jew; but, there are problems with this linguistic claim to represent the views of the person in the street, as Lipman observes:

This linguistic test does not seem to be very useful in practice, nor entirely convincing, not least because the precise application which Justice Silberg made of it is not self-evidently correct. His claim that most ordinary Jews would not have regarded Brother Daniel as Jewish because he was now a Christian monk is far from obvious. Apostate Jews, particularly those who have become high profile Christians, such as the late Anglican Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, or the Cardinal Archbishop Lustiger of Paris, seem regularly to be referred to as Jews by ordinary Jews or by the Jewish press. And how would one decide the usage of ordinary Jew? By vote, or by questionnaire, or by a ruling of a committee of sociologists?

¹²

While Lipman is right about the shortcomings of gathering evidence to substantiate a claim to represent ordinary Jews, there seems to be sufficient evidence to show Jews reject the claims of Jewish believers in Jesus that they are Jews precisely on such a basis, founded on widespread belief that Messianic Judaism is Christianity and Christians are not Jews. With regards to high-profile Christians, such as Montefiore, the issue is they may well be perceived to be Jews, but they are apostate Jews who have chosen to leave the community, so they have no status as Jews.

My own view of Jewish identity is that ideally Jewish self-definition might be acceptable with no group or individual excluded from a united-but-diversified community of Judaisms. However, in the light of the Holocaust and with a view to the survival of Jews, I veer towards the majority opinion, which appears to look to the Rabbinate for guidance, because it is what most Jews seem to respect. Writing about England, the Liberal rabbi Jonathan Magonet observes, Orthodoxy is the religion you don’t believe—but you respect its authority.¹³ The identity status of Jewish believers in Jesus is particularly challenging since it is unclear to what extent evangelical Christianity plays a role within the various messianic congregations. For (many) Jews, Messianic Judaism is a movement of Christians masquerading as Jews for the purpose of mission, so they will not even consider Jewish believers’ claims that they are Jews. This view is understandable in the light of the teachings of contempt and since Jews have no wish to see Judaism replaced by Christianity (even by a Jewish Christianity). The accuracy (or better, the inaccuracy) of such a mainstream belief is the focus of this study. It will be argued the claim from Jewish believers that they are Jews cannot be treated as if they are all the same, and that some claims are regarded as more important than others. Hugh Schonfield is a case in point, and it will be argued he was not a Christian masquerading as a Jew as a missionary ploy.

Introducing Schonfield

Hugh Joseph Schonfield (1901–1988) the thinker, writer, publisher, and world peace activist was born in Kensington, West London and describes his background as Jewish and British: My family could be said to be orthodox Jewish and orthodox British, highly patriotic in both contexts and very middle class. In Jesus: Man, Mystic, Messiah, which Schonfield wrote when he was eighty-seven years old, he says he was not conscious there was any difficulty or strain in meeting the requirements of both allegiances and felt in a curious way they seemed to blend well together. At home as a young child, there never seemed to Hugh to be any great distinction between Jews and Gentiles. What was more evident was the Schonfield household was a British one. Hugh relates: The pictures on the nursery and bedroom walls were mainly of the royal family and the exploits of such generals as Lord Kitchener.¹⁴ It will be seen later that it is important to Schonfield to show he was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish household because he believes his Jewish identity is the foundation stone of his message of Messianism for modern man. He does not give very much information about his parents, though he does mention his mother’s family came to England at the close of the reign of Queen Anne (c1714), and his father, Major William Schonfield, received his commission as an officer in a Territorial Regiment, and he regularly attended events at Buckingham Palace in full uniform. During the First World War, Schonfield’s father was called upon for the recruitment and organization of the Jewish battalions that fought in Palestine under Field Marshall Edmund Allenby, and Schonfield’s older brother Leslie, who had joined underage, was wounded on the road to Jerusalem.¹⁵ Schonfield tells us that from