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.
Showing posts with label Yaacov Deutsch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yaacov Deutsch. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Toward a Narrative of Anti-Semitism
Recently I have been engaging in a private e-mail conversation with a person, who wishes to remain anonymous, as to the history of anti-Semitism. This conversation came out of a comment I made a few months ago when posted on Yaacov Deutsch and his presentation at the AJS. I take a fairly traditional position in terms of anti-Semitism, dividing anti Semitism between the medieval model and the modern model. My friend wishes to view early modern anti-Semitism as part of its own category, noting, in particular, the increase in Christian literature on Jews and an awareness of Jews as an ethnic group. While my friend does not wish to be named, he has agreed to allow me to post the relevant parts of our conversation.
Nicholas Donin and the medieval examples that are parallel to him are marginal in comparison to the number of early modern works that reveal anti-Christian hostility.
Anonymous
As to the issue of Christian attitudes toward Jews in the early modern period. I acknowledge that there is a lot more literature at this time. Also that there is a lot more about Jewish life. That being said I still see the major downturn in Jewish-Christian relations as happening during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. For example, we have Nicholas Donin pointing out that present-day Jews are not simply some museum piece preserved from Biblical times. Our converted Jews in the sixteenth century are pushing a more sophisticated version of this thesis. If I understood you correctly you want to argue that the big shift happens in the early modern period. I am open to being convinced of the matter, but for the moment I am still sticking to the standard view. Why this shift happens and what it consists of is, of course, a hotly debated matter between R. I. Moore, Jeremy Cohen, and Robert Chazan.
Benzion
As for the change in the early modern period, I am not arguing that there was no change in the twelfth or thirteenth century, but that the early modern period marks another change. I would see it as a shift from writing about Judaism to writing about Jews and from writing about theology to writing about ethnicity. Prior to the sixteenth century there is almost no interest in the way Jews actually live. There are almost no descriptions of their rituals, almost nothing about their anti-Christian rituals and relatively little about their anti-Christian texts. This is the shift I am pointing to.
Anonymous
In terms of our understanding of anti-Semitism, I suspect that this is more a matter of what we would emphasis as opposed to a genuine disagreement. If I were to craft a narrative of anti-Semitism, for a course or for a book, I would hang it around the two poles of medieval anti-Judaism, with its origins in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and modern anti-Semitism, with its origins in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and culminating in the Holocaust. So you have medieval anti-Judaism with its belief that Jews were usurious Christ-killers who murdered Christian children for their blood and tortured hosts and you have modern anti-Semitism where Jews are a race of degenerates plotting to take over the world through the simultaneous uses of both Capitalism and Communism. For this, I would emphasis Gavin Langmuir's notion of chimerical anti-Semitism. We are not interested in other groups simply not liking Jews and saying nasty things. How do Jews go from being heretics and blasphemers to sorcerers plotting with Satan to take over the world? Our opening would cover anti-Judaism in the ancient world and the early Church with our big question being how do we get to medieval anti-Judaism. The first big part of the book would deal with medieval anti Judaism. Once we have explored medieval anti-Judaism our next big issue would be modern anti-Semitism. The sixteenth-century is useful in that it serves as a transition were, out of the issues generated by medieval anti-Judaism we begin to get issues of ethnicity. For example, the blood laws in fifteenth-century Spain, which Benzion Netanyahu makes such a big deal out of, or the works on Jewish practices written by converted Jews in Germany. From here we move to modern anti-Semitism, where race issues supplant religion, culminating in the Holocaust. Then we would finish with a word about anti-Semitism in the world today, particularly opposition to the state of Israel in the Arab world and on the hard left. You would make the early modern period equal or even more important than the twelfth and nineteenth centuries. I agree that there are interesting things going on in the period and that anti-Judaism is not something static as Trachtenberg portrayed it. I agree that a lot of what we associate with modern anti-Semitism comes into play in the early modern period. That being said I would still see the early modern period as a mutated version of medieval anti-Judaism that eventually turns into modern anti-Semitism. I freely admit that this may have to do more with my taste in narrative than hard fact. My challenge to you would be what does my narrative fail to take into account that your narrative does.
Benzion
Regarding your outline for a narrative of anti-Semitism and the two poles you suggest. I don’t disagree that if you have to chose only two, or even to focus on the two major poles, the 12-13 century attitudes toward Jews and the modern anti Semitism would be the two poles that should be chosen. However I feel that without underlying the changes in the early modern period our understanding of modern anti Semitism is not complete. I think that the early modern period should not be seen only as a transitional period, but also as a time when important changes in Christian attitude toward Jews occurred, and without them it is hard to understand modern anti Semitism. As I said I agree with you that if we to choose only two poles they would be 12-13 century attitudes toward Jews and the modern anti Semitism, but since I don’t think we need to choose only two I think that the early modern period should get more attention when studying anti Semitism. It seems to me that the main difference between the book you suggest and the one I would suggest would be the room given to the early modern period which in my opinion should be greater than what I believe you would suggest. Another difference is the emphasis on changes that appear in the early modern period in my account as oppose to your view, that as I understand it, will focus on the early modern period as a transition period while underlying the continuation of the medieval approaches. I don’t think that the two narratives are in real disagreement rather they reflect different ideas about the importance of the early modern period and differences regarding the emphasis the early modern period should get.
Anonymous
Nicholas Donin and the medieval examples that are parallel to him are marginal in comparison to the number of early modern works that reveal anti-Christian hostility.
Anonymous
As to the issue of Christian attitudes toward Jews in the early modern period. I acknowledge that there is a lot more literature at this time. Also that there is a lot more about Jewish life. That being said I still see the major downturn in Jewish-Christian relations as happening during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. For example, we have Nicholas Donin pointing out that present-day Jews are not simply some museum piece preserved from Biblical times. Our converted Jews in the sixteenth century are pushing a more sophisticated version of this thesis. If I understood you correctly you want to argue that the big shift happens in the early modern period. I am open to being convinced of the matter, but for the moment I am still sticking to the standard view. Why this shift happens and what it consists of is, of course, a hotly debated matter between R. I. Moore, Jeremy Cohen, and Robert Chazan.
Benzion
As for the change in the early modern period, I am not arguing that there was no change in the twelfth or thirteenth century, but that the early modern period marks another change. I would see it as a shift from writing about Judaism to writing about Jews and from writing about theology to writing about ethnicity. Prior to the sixteenth century there is almost no interest in the way Jews actually live. There are almost no descriptions of their rituals, almost nothing about their anti-Christian rituals and relatively little about their anti-Christian texts. This is the shift I am pointing to.
Anonymous
In terms of our understanding of anti-Semitism, I suspect that this is more a matter of what we would emphasis as opposed to a genuine disagreement. If I were to craft a narrative of anti-Semitism, for a course or for a book, I would hang it around the two poles of medieval anti-Judaism, with its origins in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and modern anti-Semitism, with its origins in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and culminating in the Holocaust. So you have medieval anti-Judaism with its belief that Jews were usurious Christ-killers who murdered Christian children for their blood and tortured hosts and you have modern anti-Semitism where Jews are a race of degenerates plotting to take over the world through the simultaneous uses of both Capitalism and Communism. For this, I would emphasis Gavin Langmuir's notion of chimerical anti-Semitism. We are not interested in other groups simply not liking Jews and saying nasty things. How do Jews go from being heretics and blasphemers to sorcerers plotting with Satan to take over the world? Our opening would cover anti-Judaism in the ancient world and the early Church with our big question being how do we get to medieval anti-Judaism. The first big part of the book would deal with medieval anti Judaism. Once we have explored medieval anti-Judaism our next big issue would be modern anti-Semitism. The sixteenth-century is useful in that it serves as a transition were, out of the issues generated by medieval anti-Judaism we begin to get issues of ethnicity. For example, the blood laws in fifteenth-century Spain, which Benzion Netanyahu makes such a big deal out of, or the works on Jewish practices written by converted Jews in Germany. From here we move to modern anti-Semitism, where race issues supplant religion, culminating in the Holocaust. Then we would finish with a word about anti-Semitism in the world today, particularly opposition to the state of Israel in the Arab world and on the hard left. You would make the early modern period equal or even more important than the twelfth and nineteenth centuries. I agree that there are interesting things going on in the period and that anti-Judaism is not something static as Trachtenberg portrayed it. I agree that a lot of what we associate with modern anti-Semitism comes into play in the early modern period. That being said I would still see the early modern period as a mutated version of medieval anti-Judaism that eventually turns into modern anti-Semitism. I freely admit that this may have to do more with my taste in narrative than hard fact. My challenge to you would be what does my narrative fail to take into account that your narrative does.
Benzion
Regarding your outline for a narrative of anti-Semitism and the two poles you suggest. I don’t disagree that if you have to chose only two, or even to focus on the two major poles, the 12-13 century attitudes toward Jews and the modern anti Semitism would be the two poles that should be chosen. However I feel that without underlying the changes in the early modern period our understanding of modern anti Semitism is not complete. I think that the early modern period should not be seen only as a transitional period, but also as a time when important changes in Christian attitude toward Jews occurred, and without them it is hard to understand modern anti Semitism. As I said I agree with you that if we to choose only two poles they would be 12-13 century attitudes toward Jews and the modern anti Semitism, but since I don’t think we need to choose only two I think that the early modern period should get more attention when studying anti Semitism. It seems to me that the main difference between the book you suggest and the one I would suggest would be the room given to the early modern period which in my opinion should be greater than what I believe you would suggest. Another difference is the emphasis on changes that appear in the early modern period in my account as oppose to your view, that as I understand it, will focus on the early modern period as a transition period while underlying the continuation of the medieval approaches. I don’t think that the two narratives are in real disagreement rather they reflect different ideas about the importance of the early modern period and differences regarding the emphasis the early modern period should get.
Anonymous
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
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 …)
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 …)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)