Cecil Roth (1899–1970) was a British Jewish historian, who taught at Oxford, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and the City University of New York. He was also the editor of the Encyclopedia Judaica . In his article “The Medieval Conception of the Jew: A New Interpretation” , Roth focuses on the specific mentality propagated by the Medieval Christianity which portrayed the Jewish people as not humans, behaving irrationally. The Jew of the Middle Ages was looked upon by Christians as standing against “logic and argument, but even against ocular demonstration” because he has “absurd opinions” which made him the “enemy of Christendom” (298).
Roth delineates the famous “disputations” between Jews and Christians, as one sided, since they were aimed at proselytizing the Christian faith. The debates attempted to use the Talmud and Jewish writings to prove that Jesus was the Messiah . Roth proposes three explanations for interpreting the reasoning behind these debates (299). The first one is the denial of the authenticity of the records, which is out of the question, since they existed. Second, he proposes to question the sanity of the theologians who created this point of view, and of the Christianity who allowed it in terms of the psychology of that time period. The third is to deduce the premise, which founded this line of argument. Roth identifies the phenomenon of the person who does not conform to state religion. Thus, the Jew was viewed as a dissenter, and as opposed to the other non-Catholics who were tolerated, the Jew was oppressed by the supremacy of the Catholic Church, which looked to suppress heresy.
However, the definition of a dissenter is different from the one of a heretic since the Jew was not regarded as a heretic, but rather as a deliberate unbeliever, who refused to recognize the truth, even though he knew it. The argument of the Christians against the Jews was that the Jews, although aware of the life of Jesus, having witnessed his prophecies and miracles, decided to refuse elevating him to the position he should’ve had, and they crucified him instead. This attitude was fostered by all the future generations of Jewry since the Jews of later generations were of a “stubborn national temperament” (300) which would enable them to behave in the same manner if the circumstances were to happen again.
Moreover, the new Christians of Jewish lineage who underwent forced conversions during the fourteenth and fifteenth century were regarded at least by the uneducated masses with suspicion, since they possessed the same Jewish mentality as their ancestors. As such, the Jews were portrayed as a cursed nation, and superstitions abounded, such as that Jews had tails, with a “bloody flux and a peculiar odour, which disappeared automatically on the administration of the waters of baptims” (301). Medieval Christianity propagated the idea that there was no need to regard Jews as rational beings.
This attitude appears in the story of Ahasuerus, the Wandering Jew, as well (301). The Wandering Jew saw Jesus going to his crucification and told him to go on, whereas Jesus punished him in turn to go on forever until Jesus returns, so therefore this Jew will always be immortal and remain a Jew. By analogy, this is symbolic of the Jewish people, who will never believe in Christianity. As another example, Roth points out that during Renaissance, an Italian scholar named Lazaro de Viterbo wrote a treatise for the Cardinal Sirleto vindicating the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures (301, 302). In response, St. Jerome accused him of suppressing evidence of the trinity in a number of Biblical verses. This was to signify that Christianity regarded that Jewish people as knowledgeable of the veracity of Christianity, but chose instead to suppress this truth and die rather than recognize it. Moreover, the Jewish people would distort the Scriptures and not admit that even the Kabbalah demonstrated the divinity of Jesus. Moreover, it was taught, even Josephus, a Jewish historian, gave proof of the life and miracles of Jesus.
Roth follows further this medieval misconception. Since Jews were accused of the desecration of the host, Christians were therefore justified to massacre and persecute the Jews for such behavior (303). The logic behind the author’s argument is that if the Jews were to engage in torturing, stabbing, and flagellations of the host, they had to first give enough importance to the host to think it’s worth it, but since they did not believe in this, there was no reason to engage in such behavior. On the other hand, the medieval point of view of Christianity was that since Christianity was the obvious truth, Jews had to believe in the supernal qualities of the host, and moreover, the wafer would become the body of Christ, and since no rational being could believe otherwise, the Jews also believed this. This was emphasized for the masses through propagating stories such as that certain miracles would happen when the Jews tortured the wafer, which would cry or bleed. Because of these tales, innocent Jews were killed such as in the tragedy at Belitz in 1243, where they were burned at the stake. (304,305)
The marranos were also accused of maltreating crucifixes and images of the Madonna. In the auto-de-Fe of Madrid on July 4th, 1632, supporters of a secret synagogue discovered in the Calle de las Infantas, were accused to have flogged and burned an effigy of Christ. In another case, Jews were accused of doing ritual murders, such as killing a Christian child to take his blood and make matzah because they were told the only way they will be cured from hemorrhoids was through Christian blood, that is the blood of the Messiah they had rejected, so therefore the Jews took this statement literally, and they continued to slaughter a Christian each year. Roth’s explains that ritual slaughterings were associated with Passover as a result of a confusion, and a boy was always to be chosen. This had started in 1144, with the discovery of a boy Wiliam, killed in a wood outside Norwick (306). This occurrence happened when Passover and Easter fell at the same time, which Christians said was in imitation of the Passion, not specifically about Passover, although this idea was confused later on. This was interpreted to be a reenactment of the crucification and in imitation of the Passion. The masses and the Church made these victims martyrs. Roth explains that they were made martyrs not because the child would’ve attained perfection, but because something from Jesus would’ve descended on the child at the time of the reenactment of the Crucification.
Moreover, as the Jews were secretly trying to bury the child, the child would rise up and chant Ave Maria or do other things that when later recounted, would be a reason to convince the non-Christian masses to convert to Christianity, but not enough proof for the Jews. As such, since the Jews did not convert as well, they were regarded as “constitutional antagonists of Jesus Christ” (307).
In conclusion, the life of a Jew was to be in constant conflict with Jesus and his followers, and the Jews were considered capable of any crime, even assassinate their own children, to prevent them from converting to Christianity. Roth concludes that the Christian perspective of the Jew in mediaeval times was to regard him as a “deliberate miscreant” (308), while the ordinary Christian man of Middle Ages was of unreasoning cruelty against the Jewish people, whom he was taught to view in a distorted light.
References:
Cohen, Jeremy, ed. Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation. New York: New York University Press, 1991.
Biography of Cecil Roth: Accessed on April 28, 2009.
http://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/AID/457404
History College Course.
No comments:
Post a Comment