Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Hebrew Bibliography in Early Modern Europe

Adam Shear – Reuchlin and the Categorization of Jewish Literature circa 1500

How did Early Modern Jews organize books? How did such categories affect how the books were treated? Such a study should reveal something about the mental framework of those who used them. One place to look are lists of books whether Jewish nor non-Jewish. These lists, though, are not divided by categories. Historians are left using modern categories. Using our modern categories can obscure the relationship between these books. All historical research involves translation, but there is still a need to understand things as people at the time understood them. The Christian Hebraist Johannes Reuchlin responded to Johannes Pfefferkorn, a convert from Judaism, who had told the emperor that Jewish literature contained damaging material to Christians. Reuchlin defended the Talmud and Jewish rights. According to Reuchlin, Jews had legal protection and that furthermore their works benefited Christians. Reuchlin offers the earliest bibliographical scheme for Jewish books, going from most authoritative to least authoritative.

Holy Scripture – This carries the highest authority.

Talmud – Reuchlin makes no mention of the Mishnah nor does mention the Oral Law. He simply views the Talmud as exegesis on the Bible. As a Christian he was not about to lend any extra authority to the Talmud as having any basis in a tradition. This stance, though, also helps when dealing with anti-Christian statements. Reuchlin could argue that such statements were not intrinsic to Judaism.

Kabbalah - This was not something that Pfefferkorn or the Cologne theologians were familiar with. This had more to do with Reuchlin’s interests.

Commentaries – These, Reuchlin points out, are not binding, like the Talmud.

Midrash and Sermons – Reuchlin removes Midrash as a category of series of authority and places it on the same level of medieval sermons. There is no mention of Jewish liturgy.

Philosophy

Poetry, fables – These are deemed by Reuchlin as whimsical. Even the Jews, he claims, do not take them seriously. Reuchlin places the Nizzahon and Toldot Yeshu in this category. He even makes the claim that the Jews forbid these books themselves. Reuchlin may have been a naive sap but a very canny lawyer.

As Yaacov Deutsch argues, this is a period in which Christians, particularly converts, begin to offer descriptions of what Jews do. There is a parallel to the Barcelona debate of 1263. Reuchlin seems to engage in both sides of the Barcelona Debate. Like Nachmonides he tried to limit authority of midrashic literature. On the other hand he wished to give a Christian interpretation of Jewish texts.

(Dr. Shear is the author of the Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity and the Tea, Lemon, Old Books.)


Stephen G. Burnett – Jean Plantavit de la Pause’s Bibliotheca Rabbinica (1645) and Seventeenth - Century Jewish Bibliography

The Christian Hebraist Jean Plantavit de la Pause’s (1576 – 1651) bibliography of Jewish books, Biblia Rabbinica, is often criticized for repeating the errors of Johannes Buxtorf and adding his own. Plantavit is still valuable as an example of this period where knowledge of Judaism growing because of converts and because of more Judaic libraries. Plantavit lead a dramatic life with two theological careers. He was born into a Hugonaut family and trained as a Protestant theologian. He converted to Catholicism after he already had a degree in theology. Interested in Hebrew, Plantavit studied with Leone Modena. Modena encouraged him to start his own Hebrew library. Modena may have done this out of self interest as he was a book seller. Plantavit also studied under Domenico Gerosolimitano, the converted Jew who served as the chief censor for the Catholic Church. (See Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin’s The Censor, the Editor, and the Text.)

Biblia Rabbinica was intended to replace Buxtorf’s work. Such a bibliography served a Catholic polemical purposes. In a post Index world, Catholics needed a guide as to what books were permitted to read and quote. Plantavit owned over one hundred and eighty books out of eight hundred books he listed. He also owned a copy of the Jerusalem Talmud, even though he does not list it. This book was banned; Plantavit was more interested in telling other people what to read than in following his own advice. While Plantavit had Buxtorf outnumbered by two to one, the younger Johannes Buxtorf put out an updated version of his father’s book five years earlier. This had over a thousand Hebrew books, making Plantavit’s book outdated from the start. Between the two of them, Buxtorf and Plantavit only listed about a quarter of the Hebrew books printed.

AJS Conference Day One Session Two (Interreligious Hostility in Medieval and Early Modern Times Part I)

(In the interests of space I have divided this post up.)

Yaacov Deutsch (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
“When ropes he pulls, with rubbish he’s full:’ Anti-Christian Curses in the Medieval and Early Modern Period”

The title refers to the church bell ringer. It actual rhymes nicely in Hebrew. Church bells represented Christianity in the public sphere. This is an example of a Jewish hidden discourse, where Jews amongst themselves would curse Christians. We should not think of medieval Jews as being resigned to their situation. Jews had a highly developed discourse to mock Christianity. Jesus is referred to as a bastard. This Toldot Yeshu tradition not only rejects the gospel account it also reverses it. We see churches referred to as tiflah, unimportant or worthless. This plays on the similarity to the Hebrew word for prayer, tifilah. The church is a house of worthless prayers. We have an example of an Ashkenazic prayer, said at circumcisions, about the hoped for destruction of Christendom. The ritual of circumcision itself, therefore, takes on its own polemic and becomes a means to distinguish those who are part of the covenant and those who are not, mainly Christians. We should take the claims of Jewish converts to Christianity seriously when they talk about Jews putting anti-Christian meanings to various rituals; these claims are often supported by Jewish sources. (See Elisheva Carlebach's Divided Souls) The rise of works on Judaism by converted Jews led to a major shift as Christians became increasingly aware of this anti-Christian discourse. An example of this is Martin Luther, who dramatically changed his opinion about Jews soon after reading Toldot Yeshu and Anton Margaritha's work.

(I challenged Deutsch over Toldot Yeshu. Christians all of a sudden discovered Toldot Yeshu in the sixteenth century? Agobard of Lyon already was complaining about it in the ninth century. Deutsch’s response was that after Agobard there was not much done about Toldot Yeshu until the sixteenth century when it finally reached print. So fine I am willing to accept a rise in interest in Toldot Yeshu. It also plausible that Luther was influenced by Toldot Yeshu. I still do not buy into the notion that there is a remarkable shift in Jewish-Christian relations or that it was brought about by exposes on Judaism written by converted Jews. What is really so different here from say Nicholas Donin in the thirteenth century complaining about anti-Christian passages in the Talmud?

There was someone in the audience who went absolutely ballistic at Deutsch, accusing him of blaming Jews for Christian anti-Semitism. What Deutsch is arguing is very similar to what Israel Yuval did with ritual murder charges. Christians are reacting to a very real anti-Christian sentiment among Jews and make the logical conclusion. If Jews are willing to kill their own children in their hatred of Christianity how much more so would they be willing to kill Christian children? Yuval was also attacked for seeming to blame Jews for anti-Semitism. In fairness to both Deutsch and Yuval, neither of them are blaming Jews. What they are doing is trying to get past the model of rabid Christians out to murder Jews who are completely passive; there is a give and take here. )


Miriam Bodian (Touro College)
“The New Polemical Arguments of an Inquisition Prisoner: The Case of Isaac de Castro Tartas”

Isaac de Castro Tartes lived in quite a number of places during his short life. He was born into a converse family in seventeenth-century Spain. His family fled to France when he was a child, where he attended a Jesuit school. They then joined the Jewish community in Amsterdam. Isaac went to Dutch Brazil, but then crossed over to the Portuguese side where he was caught, apparently with a pair of tiffilin in his possession, and sent back to Portugal as a Judaizer. He was eventually burned at the stake in Lisbon. Isaac argues with his Inquisitors. He has a triumphant view of Jewish exile, even claiming, strangely enough, that Jews outnumber Christians. Despite everything that has happened to them, Jews have flourished and have become rich; Jews even bring prosperity to whatever nation they reside in. Leaving aside straight anti-Christian polemics, Isaac does not directly attack the Church or paint Christians as being beyond salvation. Isaac points out that one does not have to be Jewish in order to be saved and that one can be saved through the seven Noachide laws. These laws are based in reason and are the basis for natural law. Using his Jesuit training, Isaac confronts the charge that he is a Judaizing Christian. There is no proof that he was ever baptized; he certainly has no memory of it. Even if he was baptized he never consented to it. If his parents had him baptized they, as converses, clearly did not mean it. Anyway, he did not confirm his baptism when he became of age so it should not count. The inquisitors counter this by pointing out that amongst Jews circumcision is done to children and it makes them Jews for life. Isaac also tries to paint himself as someone following his consciousness. He is following a law given by God and has not done any specific action that can be defined as a sin in Church law. He should be free to choose from any established religion. Isaac can be seen as an example of a shift in seventeenth-century thought. He emphasizes personal autonomy and the authority of reason and natural law.

(Here is an example of a legitimate Jew ending up in the hands of the Inquisition. Most converso cases were people with little real connection to Judaism and better classified as heretical Catholics. What is interesting about Isaac is that even his defense of Judaism is rooted in Christian thinking. This is a renegade Catholic who embraced Judaism.)

(To be continued …)

Toward Formulating a Jewish View of Jesus (Part I)

A question that I am often asked by Christians is how do Jews view Jesus? This is a rather difficult question to answer. Not because the question itself is so difficult, but because this is one of those questions that is not really about the given question, but is about larger issues; to answer such a question one most first come to terms with the very framework from which it arose.

What do Jews think of Jesus? As with most of Judaism, there is a wide spectrum of opinions. The Talmud, if we are to assume that the Yeshu that it speaks of is in fact Jesus, views him as a sorcerer and a heretic, who was justifiably executed by a Jewish court for his crimes and is now burning in excrement in hell. This view of Jesus finds its most coherent expression in an early medieval text known as Toldot Yeshu. Toldot Yeshu can be read as a Hebrew counter Gospel or even as a satire on the Gospel accounts. According to Toldot Yeshu Mary was a whore and Jesus was a bastard. In other words Toldot Yeshu is filled with the sorts of things that Christians today, unless they want to be accused of being Anti-Semitic, are not allowed to accuse Jews of believing. The fact that these accusations are grounded in Jewish sources is irrelevant; multiculturalism has nothing to do with telling the truth.

There are alternative Jewish views to this. Toldot Yeshu is hardly an authoritative source and there have been those, such of R’ Yechiel of Paris, who have denied that the Yeshu in the Talmud is Jesus. (See Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages.) The late fourteenth century commentator Profiat Duran referred to Jesus as a Hasid Sotah, a pious fool. Duran wrote a commentary, in Hebrew, on the New Testament, Kalyimot Hagoyim, offering a non Trinitarian reading of the New Testament and arguing that Jesus, the apostles and even Paul, for whatever faults they might have had, were good practicing Jews, who never intended to start another religion; it was their followers, who came afterward, who twisted their words and created Christianity. Moses Mendelssohn claimed to admire Jesus as a moral philosopher. This view was also shared by R’ Jacob Emden. (See Alexander Altman, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study pg. 204-05.)

Strictly speaking, from the standpoint of traditional Jewish thought, there is nothing to stop one from being a “believer” in Jesus. One can believe that Jesus was a righteous man; Judaism believes in the concept of righteous men. One can believe that Jesus performed miracles; Judaism believes that God will sometimes perform miracles, particularly if they are through the hands of a righteous person. One can even believe that Jesus was born of a virgin; a virgin birth is simply a type of miracle. In fact there is a tradition that Ben Sira was the son of Jeremiah’s daughter, born through a “virgin” birth. One can believe that Jesus was crucified; Judaism does not believe that righteous people are invulnerable. One can even believe that his death brought about some sort of atonement; there are Jewish sources that speak of God taking the righteous as atonement for sins of the world. One can believe that Jesus arouse from the dead and ascended to heaven alive; Judaism believes that Elijah the prophet and Enoch ascended to heaven alive and well as numerous other people. One can believe that Jesus sits at the “right hand” of God and is the fulfillment of Psalms 110; it is no different than saying that King David, Abraham or the Messiah sit at God’s right. Ultimately if one wants to one could say that the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53 is about Jesus; it is no different than saying that the passage refers to Moses, Jeremiah or R’ Akiba. This may be pushing things, but, in theory, one could hold that Jesus was the Messiah provided that you define the Messiah simply as a mortal human being who is the subject of Isaiah 11; there are Jewish sources that say that this chapter refers to King Hezekiah.

There are really only three Christian beliefs that Judaism could never accept. One, that Jesus was, in some sense, God incarnate and part of some sort of Trinity. While in theory this belief might not be worse than the Kabbalistic notion of sephirot, any traditional notion of Trinity or an incarnated God is unlikely to pass through the strictures posed by the Jewish philosophical tradition, particularly as exemplified by Maimonides. From the perspective of Maimonides’ theology any discussion of divine attributes is problematic. Two, that Mosaic Law is no longer valid. Mosaic Law defines Judaism; if there is no Mosaic Law then Judaism ceases to exist. The final belief that Judaism could never accept is the idea that a belief in Jesus is somehow necessary for ones own personal salvation. Accepting such a claim would mean placing Jesus at the center of the religion and reorienting it around this singular concept.
(To be continued …)