Ben Shapiro’s ‘Judeo-Christian’ Complex

“I am struggling to come up with what are the significant differences,” said Ben Shapiro on the Rubin Report when asked to identify the ideological and theological differences between his Jewish and Jordan Peterson’s Christian beliefs. 

How is it that Ben Shapiro, who typically shows a masterful ability to sharply and swiftly break down arguments, fails to spot the distinctions in this particular case?

Shapiro’s inability to properly articulate the essential differences between Jewish beliefs and Christian theology is not a result of his lack of familiarity with the latter (as he suggested on the show) or with the former, but rather a byproduct of a deep yet unconscious identity crisis.

Shapiro, who is currently writing a book on “Judeo-Christian” values, may very well serve as an archetype for the colonized right-wing Jew in the United States. Bright, passionate, and brutally honest – yet essentially viewing himself as a white American with a “Jewish religion” (while rejecting the very notions of privilege and whiteness).

Ben is not a conscious sellout. On the contrary, he wears his kippa proudly on national television. He’s well educated in our people’s ancient teachings and sees both his heart and ideological worldview as being deeply anchored in Jewish values.

Yet despite all this, he seems to experience no conflict when referring to the Hebrew Tanakh as the “Old Testament” or promoting the notion of “Judeo-Christian” values. This is indicative of how deeply Jews have mentally assimilated into the West.

Undoubtedly, Ben’s attitude doesn’t stem from a theological credence to Christianity or disrespect to Jewish tradition. But it is symptomatic of the blurring of all essential distinctions between the Hebrew and Western civilizations. 

This blurring is also illustrated by the fact that even those differences between the two worldviews Ben Shapiro did point out on the Rubin Report were quickly dismissed and undermined by his assertion that “a lot of these distinction are almost a little false.”

Shapiro’s insistence on emphasizing the commonalities while reducing the differences is no surprise, as he essentially views Christianity and Western civilization as an extension of Jewish values and culture: “We share a common framework of how we view the world, you may just not agree with the second half the book.”

In truth, the process of “whitening” Jews in America is not much different from the historical Greek Hellenization of Jewish identity, as the early Judean Hellenists of that era were not considered Hellenized due to a lack of adherence to Jewish law but rather out of the adoption of a Greek lens through which to view the world (the lack of adherence to Jewish law came later). Shapiro said it himself: “It is essentially an attempt to merge Jerusalem with Athens.”

The fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish identity common for Jews living in the West can also be seen in Ben’s assertion that he “cares little” for what he calls “biological Judaism.” This view stems from the premise that one’s Jewishness is based on faith and an adherence to a religion rather than on belonging to an ancient people with a shared history, destiny, and mission. 

The confusion on whether Jews are “a religion or a race” is a prime example of how Western paradigms may blind us to our own. The assertion that all identities must fall into the socially constructed categories of religion, race, ethnicity, culture, etc. is an obvious form of cultural imperialism, as Hebrew identity predates these social constructs and is based on neither religion nor race. While Ben is correct in his assertion that Jews are not a race, he falls into the trap of Western paradigms when attempting to squeeze Jewish identity into one of the only two categories provided.

Jordan Peterson, doing a better job than Ben Shapiro in response to Rubin’s question, actually acknowledged Jewish peoplehood as he pointed out one of the differences: The emphasis Christianity puts on the role of the individual versus the emphasis Jews place on the role of the collective, in the process of perfecting reality and as a mechanism for salvation. Peterson is indeed correct, and this difference is, among other things, tied to Jewish identity being nation-based in contrast to the religious nature of Christianity (In the Western collective unconscious, Jesus symbolizes the nation of Israel – as God’s “son” in the Hebrew Tanakh is metaphorically “My firstborn Israel”).

This difference is also strongly tied to another essential theological variance – the early Christian separation of “heaven and earth” in contrast to the holistic nature of the Jewish ideal: seeking ultimate unity by recognizing the spiritual value of the material, providing potential for the workplace, military or even national parliament to be as holy as the Synagogue. The Jewish understanding of the Creator being “One” doesn’t come to negate plurality, as is commonly thought, but to state the underlying unity between all of existence.

The Hebrew worldview is holistic and nothing is viewed as being outside of God – whether it be science, politics, philosophy, pleasure or tragedy – the children of Israel aim to accomplish the seemingly impossible: purify and sanctify the naturally filthy and chaotic political realm.

Thus, the conservative-Christian view of government as only being valuable insofar as it provides the infrastructure allowing the individual to peacefully exercise free will, versus the Jewish view of the collective as an entity unto itself with its own intrinsic identity and value beyond the individuals included, is yet another argument against any shared “Judeo-Christian” value system.

This Jewish stance is not the individual-annihilating collectivism Shapiro rails against, nor the idolatrous Hegelian worship of state, but the conception that the ostensibly rival individualist and collective realms are actually complementary.

Taking Peterson’s above observation of Jewish peoplehood a step further, we may take notice of another important distinction. While Peterson is a Christian by virtue of adopting Christian beliefs, Ben is a Jew by virtue of descending from the Biblical Hebrews – a group that has alone maintained not only the authentic traditions of its Israelite ancestors, but also the living mythological elements Peterson claims to have been lost (in his book Maps of Meaning). Nietzsche’s assertion that “God is dead” as signifying the loss of experienced intrinsic meaning only holds true collectively for those peoples and cultures who have lost contact with mythological valence.

The difference between Jewish and Christian theology is therefore not quantitative but ontological. While the latter is essentially a mythological replacement for an essence that was once upon a time experienced (“God is dead”), the former is purified mythology in the making – a living breathing nation revived on its ancestral homeland, living out its ancient prophecies and fulfilling its primordialist mission (“a living God”).

As such, the true reason Shapiro should have struggled to articulate the differences between Jewish and Christian theology should have rested on the principle that they share little common ground to begin with. The abysmal differences between the two worldviews do not stem from minor variances of interpretation, but from an entirely different foundation at the root level.

While a comprehensive answer to Rubin’s question is beyond the scope of this piece (and only a few examples were provided above), it’s important to also note the most fundamental of these differences – the God concept. Our people’s traditional approach  has less to do with idolatrous and impotent attempts to define the noumenality of God and more to do with manifesting Divine ideals in this world. The God of Israel is neither Peterson’s humanized archetypical meta-hero nor a “supernatural being.” The ungraspable infinite perfection the soul yearns for when the children of Israel use the expression “HaShem” transcends all definitions, paradigms, and categorizations.

The ramifications of these two rival core perceptions is monumental.

It’s even at this most fundamental level that Ben Shapiro fails to make a distinction, as he asserts that “The god of radical Islam is not the same as the Judeo-Christian God” as if to say that the God of Israel is somehow also the Christian god.

With supersessionism resting at the very basis of Christianity, it’s understandable why it can’t disconnect itself from its Jewish roots and therefore speaks of “Judeo-Christian” (which is really just Christian) civilization. Indeed, the West has historically incorporated many values of Hebrew origin into its systems. Many of the American values Shapiro regards as “Judeo-Christian” are, in fact, conceptions of early Christianity that were later “softened” in modern times through a “Judaization” of Christianity.

The early Christian belief in abstinence, for example, has been softened by Protestantism. As current American values remain rooted in early Christian concepts, they are only marginally successful in their attempts at turning back to their source.

Hebrew values, on the other hand, are not an amalgamation of multiple theologies or cultures, and may not coincide with those of the West. If we wish to claim that Western civilization has benefited through the influence of Hebrew values, we need to understand that the only way to continue having a positive impact on the world is to focus on the aspects of our culture we don’t yet share in common. The next stage of our revolution must ask what Israel has left to give to humanity. In order to offer something new to the world, Jerusalem must reconnect to its authentic values from within, free from both exilic and post-exilic foreign influences.

If Ben Shapiro decides to embrace his Jewish identity rather than identify as a “white American with a Jewish religion” and dedicates his mind and zeal to exploring genuine Hebrew rather than “Judeo-Christian” values, perhaps on the next Rubin Report, Peterson and the broader audience might be offered some fresh perspectives, values, and ideals, that they’re clearly thirsty for as a result of Western civilization’s own inherent contradictions.