Professor Jackson introduced the series on the Chief Rabbi's essay, on October 21st 2003, as follows:

Introduction

This series of five Rabbinics Seminars is devoted to the study of the Chief Rabbi's essay, posted on his web site earlier this year, entitled "A Clash of Civilizations? Judaic Sources on Co-existence in a World of Difference." We hope to create a positive educational experience out of a controversy which has proved divisive and sometimes bitter. However, before we begin to study the present texts, and the sources which the Chief Rabbi quotes in it, it may be useful briefly to locate it within the context in which it arose.

A year ago, the Chief Rabbi published his book, The Dignity of Difference. How to Avoid the Clash of Civilisations. It was published on the anniversary of September 11th, and was designed primarily to address the problem of interfaith conflict, and in particular to counter the argument of a book written before September 11th, by Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, which had claimed that a clash of civilisations, involving particularly religious civilisations, was inevitable. The Dignity of Difference is thus located in the sphere of social and political ethics; the Chief Rabbi seeks in it to put forward what he calls the "Judaic sources on Co-existence in a World of Difference", and that, indeed, is the subtitle of the essay to be discussed in this series.

The Dignity of Difference was not written, and no one would have dreamed of regarding it, as a theological tract. However, in the course of it, the Chief Rabbi made a number of incidental theological statements which were picked up in the press and occasioned some surprise and criticism in sections of the Orthodox community. They included the following:

In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions of revelation - faiths in which God speaks and we attempt to listen.

God has created many cultures, civilisations and faiths but only one world.

Opponents very rapidly identified these statements as contradicting basic Jewish belief in what came to be described as the "absolute truth" of Torah. As one commentator wrote:

Sir Isaiah Berlin maintained that people have fought wars and killed in the name of religion because they believed themselves to be in sole possession of the truth. Adherents of Christianity and Islam believed that they had "absolute truth" and that is why they killed people for their faith. Consequently, it would be most helpful if the leaders and followers of the various world religions could accept that they do not possess "absolute truth." This would remove from them the need to kill others in the name of their religion. People should instead be taught to realise that they have only a partial truth. For, the Chief Rabbi argues, only in Heaven is there "absolute truth." On earth there is only "partial truth." Faiths should understand that they do not possess the "absolute truth." Each faith only has a "partial truth." This appears to be the basis of the solution that Chief Rabbi Professor Sacks would like to suggest to prevent the clash of civilisations." Indeed, to deny the "absolute" (i.e. exclusive) truth of Judaism involves "undermining the fundamentals of our faith".

Another opponent argued (from the pulpit) that revelation at Sinai was the only divine revelation. Some opponents did not express their reasons for opposition, but only the opposition itself and its consequences. Thus, a famous Rabbi in Gateshead advised that it was "forbidden to have possession" of the Chief Rabbi's book. Another Rabbi from the Haredi community is reported to have posted a notice in his synagogue describing the book as "heresy" and assuring congregants that it would meet the same fate as other "heretical works" if it were not retracted. Indeed, a notice from that synagogue's leaders coupled it with the biblical curse, "the name of the wicked shall rot" and threatened that "his iniquity will not be atoned for" unless he repented and withdrew "all these books so they will be destroyed as is the law regarding other sectarian and heretical works." Indeed, the London Beth Din, placed in an uneasy position between the Chief Rabbi and the Haredi community, issued a statement suggesting that "certain passages" of Chief Rabbi Sacks's book "... lend themselves to an interpretation that is inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs." And even from the more moderate wing of the Orthodox Spectrum, a well-known London Rabbi, associated generally with relatively liberal views, claimed from the pulpit that there was "nothing" in Christianity or Islam that could not be traced back to Judaism.

In the face of these criticisms, three different responses by the Chief Rabbi may be identified. The first was a statement issued on October 25th 2002, made after consultation with the London Beth Din. The second was the revision of the book itself, since the first edition was effectively withdrawn from publication and a second edition was published with certain passages altered. These changes were made in consultation with the London Beth Din; indeed, the final draft is said to have been approved by the Dayanim of the London Beth Din in consultation with other Torah scholars; we may therefore refer to this second edition as the "authorised version". A third response is represented by the essay whose study we shall commence this evening, an essay designed to fulfil a promise made by the Chief Rabbi when the controversy first broke, namely that he would indeed write a theological essay, and back it up with sources, to substantiate his theological position on the Jewish view of interfaith relations. So far as I know, this essay has not been issued with the approval (haskamah) of the London Beth Din. Rather, it has been "buried away" on the Chief Rabbi's web site, in that it has not been published at all in print form, and, moreover, is difficult to find on the web site itself, unless you go there knowing exactly how to find it. Indeed, the availability of this essay does not appear to be widely known within the community; there seems to have been a policy not to encourage its dissemination and discussion.

Before we commence our study, let me first provide a flavour of the two -- somewhat more "political" -- responses by the Chief Rabbi, as found in his statement of October 25th 2002 and in the revisions contained within the "authorised version". In his statement, the Chief Rabbi said:

"As well as attracting interest, the first edition of "The Dignity of Difference" has generated controversy. Interpretations were given and inferences drawn that are quite foreign to my intentions and beliefs. The problem lies in the use I make of words - such as "truth," "faith," "language," "voice," and "speaks" - that can be ambiguous, especially when, as here, one is trying to communicate across boundaries between different cultures and languages.
"I believed I had guarded against this possibility by making it clear in the prologue that I was writing as an Orthodox Jew. That means one who believes in the absolute truth and divine authorship of the Torah and its completeness as the totality of revelation at Sinai - God's covenant with humanity (the covenant of Noah) and with the Jewish people (the covenant of Sinai).
''If there is anything radical in the book, it is not my interpretation of Judaism. The position I have articulated is based on two principles central to our faith, namely that there is a universal covenant between God and mankind as well as the particular covenant between God and the children of Israel at Sinai, and that the pious of the nations have a share in the world to come
''Nothing I have written should be taken as implying that religious differences are inconsequential or unsubstantive; that all religions are equally true, or conversely that each is incomplete; or that it does not matter if one abandons or changes one's faith. I hold none of those views.''
"... if there is anything unusual in the book, it is that I argue for tolerance not on secular or liberal grounds, but precisely on the basis of Orthodox Jewish belief."

Now let me draw attention to a few of the revisions made in the "authorised version" (with acknowledgement to Simon Rocker for his coverage of the textual issues in The Jewish Chronicle, particularly on 14th February 2003):

Original: In the course of history, God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims.
Revised: As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with a singular people, but that does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faiths finding their own relationship with God within the shared frame of the Noahide law.

Original: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions of revelation - faiths in which God speaks and we attempt to listen.
Revised: Deleted

Original: God has created many cultures, civilisations and faiths but only one world.
Revised: There are many cultures, civilisations and faiths but God has given us only one world.

My final example is somewhat different, since I think it is possible to argue that here the revision is slightly more radical than the original:

Original: Judaism believes in one God but not in one religion, one culture, one truth. The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind.
Revised: Judaism believes in one God but not in one exclusive path to salvation. The God of the Israelites is the God of all mankind, but the demands made of the Israelites are not asked of all mankind.

What then are the real issues between the Chief Rabbi and his opponents? I personally would formulate them in the following way:

1. Is there truth in other religions, or does Judaism, as some of the Chief Rabbi's opponents maintain, claim a "monopoly" of religious truth?
2. Insofar as there is truth in other religions, is it merely a reiteration of what has already been said in the revelation at Sinai, or is it complemetary/supplementary, adding something different to that which has been said at Sinai? If the latter, then it may indeed be possible to argue that revelation to Judaism is "partial truth", in that there does exist religious truth other than at Sinai. (This clearly is denied by his opponents, and in his statement, the Chief Rabbi himself also appears to back away from any such claim.)
3. Insofar as there is (overlapping) truth in other religions, has it been revealed to them directly, or have such religions "borrowed" it from Judaism?

There is one issue in this debate which I am not going to address, and that is the issue of "heresy", a term used by more than one opponent of the Chief Rabbi. We lack, from the opponents of the Chief Rabbi, any document comparable to the present essay (that is, an argument backed up by sources) setting out what precisely is the nature of this heresy, and what the halakhah tells us about its determination and consequences. Without such an argument, we only have "political" rather than theological statements, and these are not susceptible to academic study. I do hope that a full response on this issue may be forthcoming, at which time I shall be more than happy to organise a further set of seminars at which we can discuss the arguments academically and respectfully. For the moment, I would say only that those who wish to avail themselves of an initial review of Jewish views on heresy are recommended to look at the article by Alexander Altmann (of Manchester fame) in volume 3 of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, columns 654-60, entitled "Articles of Faith". He goes systematically through the major Jewish philosophers, mainly of the Middle Ages, who have contributed to the debate on the ikkarim, the "fundamentals", of faith. There is a whole library of different formulations -- not only the most famous one of Maimonides, in his Thirteen Principles -- which specify what are the fundamentals, and sometimes the consequences of denying them. I would invite you to review that article, and consider whether any of the original statements in The Dignity of Difference (even if considered erroneous) could conceivably be included in any of the categories of heresy as formulated by the medieval Jewish philosophers. Merely to disagree with a theological statement, even to disagree fundamentally with it, does not justify the use of the words "heresy" or heretic". To use them in such circumstances, without providing theological justification in terms of traditional Jewish halakhah and philosophy, is in my view irresponsible. That is all I wish to say on this matter, other than to quote the words of my good friend, Alan Unterman, as reported in The Jewish Telegraph: "Heresy sometimes is in the eyes of the beholder."