By ValerieSobel
Let’s begin our tour of the Cathedral slowly and gently, lest we offend too quickly. The inevitable crescendo of uncomfortable Notre Dame history is laid out herein by my politically incorrect pen.
Notre Dame’s genesis dates back to the 12th/13th century when a vast majority of the population was illiterate. As with most art, Notre Dame’s statues, elaborate friezes, and stained glass windows, first and foremost, served an educational purpose; to impart religious instruction to the masses with respect to right vs. wrong, correct Christian beliefs vs. heresy and blasphemy. Without the separation of Church and State for centuries, Notre Dame’s art & architecture was a political and social doctrine as much as the religious. Church teachings through these visuals formed culture and society itself.
So what exactly is France transfixed with restoring to the tune of close to a billion dollars? What is this structure – the beneficiary of internationally poured donations and collective adoration?
First, let’s look up at the charred facade. Above the cathedral’s main doorway is a carving of two Christian saints, Anne and Joachim.
Christian Saints? These are the Jewish grandparents of Jesus who’ve never heard of Christianity, Catholicism or sainthood in their lifetime, just as their grandson hadn’t. In fact, Anne was not Anne but ??????, Hannah, from the Tribe of Asher. And Joachim was not Joachim but ???????????, Yehoackim. And of course their famous grandson was never Jesus, but Yoshua. The new Latin names were invented 300 years after the death of Yoshua when Constantine’s political expediency required the establishment of a new religion that would produce a large army to defeat a rivaling Emperor. And it did!
Likewise, sainthood isn’t practiced in Judaism, doubtful Hannah and Yehoackim would appreciate this posthumous erosion of their faith…in their name, to boot.
So why are these Jews depicted on the facade of the Church?
Notre Dame, like all Churches for a dozen centuries, unabashedly appropriated Jewish history, Jewish symbols, Jewish narratives and personage in order to suck the oxygen from Judaic teachings they abhorred. Take these visible icons from Judaism – and evaporate the stubborn religion that refused conversions and a breach of its covenant with God. Ergo, leave the Jews with nothing as a consequence of social and religious punishment, so to speak.
A good example of this practice (one of countless around the world) is the Church of St. Croce in Florence with its massive Star of David above the facade. Clearly, the impressive Magen David, most recognizable symbol of Judaism, wasn’t erected high above ground to turn the illiterate Italians into Jews.
Just a few geographic miles away from Notre Dame, in Christianity’s highest office on earth, Pope Sixtus IV was also obsessed with erasing Judaism. He went as far as commissioning the exact and total replication of Temple of Solomon to the last mathematical millimetre for all dimensions (height, width and length), position of the altar, congregation vs. clergy seating arrangement and installation of windows and floor candelabras. Where, you ask? …why the Sistine Chapel, of course!
When gawking at the famous ceiling, the 20,000 visitors per day trekking through the most famous Church in the world never realize they’re standing in Jerusalem’s Temple of Solomon, for all intents and purposes. And they most certainly never look down to the floor, where they would discover an infinite array of tiled Magen Davids.
By appropriating Jewish culture, the Church set out to erase competing Judaism and proclaim Christianity the one true religion of Europe. Which brings us to the next Notre Dame artifact, also luckily fire-unscathed.
Look up at the facade once again and see two side by side female statute figures. One with her head held high, wearing a crown and holding a scepter. The other with her head down, drooping, a tumbled crown at her feet and a serpent slithering across her eyes, completely blindfolding her. Look closer, in her right hand she holds something of visual importance; the Talmud. And the Talmud appears slipping from her hand. Any wild guesses?
This disgraced, snake-wrapped woman carrying a broken lance (an allusion to the Holy Lance that stabbed Christ, a reference to Jews as Christ killers) is non-other than Synagoga. She’s perfectly juxtaposed against Ecclesia (only inches away), the young, beautiful, regal, very confident looking Christian diva for all to adore.
And what is the exact translation of the Greek words “Ecclesia” and “Synagoga”? Church and Synagogue, to be exact. That is to say, Christianity and Judaism, respectively.
This very large and recognizable pair of statues frequently appears on church portals throughout Europe indigenous of large Jewish populations, especially in Germany, with most famous example at the Strasbourg Cathedral. They are also often found standing on either side of the cross, for that extra educational punch: to remind Jews of their place in a Christian society by projecting required Jewish submission within an ideal Christian realm.
These female figures also reflect the Christian belief, called ‘Supersessionism’ that Jesus was the Messiah, and that Judaism, as a religion, was therefore made unnecessary by its own tenets, once Christianity was established. Hence, of course, all Jews should convert.
This belief was universal in the medieval church throughout Europe. Synagoga’s blindfold reflected the refusal of Jews to “see” this point, which was regarded as intolerable stubbornness by Christianity.
Feeling the heat, yet? We are not even close to the fire.
What exactly did the Church of Notre Dame communicate and dispense at the pinnacle of its relevance and glory?
In 1238 a Parisian Priest of the Franciscan order, Nicolas Donin, presented himself before Pope Gregory IX in Rome and denounced the Talmud. Thirty-five articles were drawn up in which Donin charged Judaism with virulent attacks on Mary’s virginity and the divinity of Jesus.
This libel became the platform for the 1240 Disputation of Paris which resulted in a papal decree to publicly burn all Talmud manuscripts. The Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law and theology. It is also the centerpiece of Jewish culture and a guide and foundation to everyday Jewish life.
All copies of Talmud were forcefully seized from the French Jews. A total of 24 carriages of 1200 priceless scrolls and books were set ablaze in a fiery inferno on June 17th, 1244.
…where, you ask? Right there, in the Notre Dame Square of the Church that represented the one true religion. The very Church that reigned supreme before the return of the papal court from France in 1377 to the Vatican.
What makes the horrific Notre Dame Jewish book burning unique in history is that the aforementioned papal dictum for Talmud burning was generally ignored throughout Europe. Except in France, where the Jews were compelled under threat of death to surrender their holy books.
Not to be outdone by the Notre Dame Square, another humiliating and powerfully consequential event was orchestrated within the walls of Notre Dame itself.
This time it involved St. Louis, the subject of the “Tunic Of St. Louis” relic the French are ecstatic at saving from the fire.
Who was this Saint, this Louis?
He is none other than King Louis IX, the good author of judicial presumption of innocence. He’s also the active participant of the 7th and 8th Crusade and the expander of murderous practice of Inquisition against the Jews. His ideas on punishment for perceived blasphemy were also notable: a complete mutilation of the tongue and lips. Yet he’s the only sainted King of France…
But what does any of this have to do with Notre Dame and the Jewish book burnings?
In 1242, the said King Louis IX of France ordered a public trial of Judaism within the very walls of Notre Dame. In a farcical set-up, four most distinguished rabbis of France (Yechiel of Paris, Moses of Coucy, Judah of Melun, and Samuel ben Solomon of Château-Thierry) were forced to defend accusations that Talmudic teachings were anti-Christian. With the foregone concluded prejudgement by the King himself, the Christian inquisitors of Notre Dame ordered some 1200 volumes of the Talmud to be set ablaze in a towering inferno.
And what of the rest of France in the 12th and 13th century?
Year 1146 – 2nd Christian Crusade: Jewish communities of France brutally slaughtered.
Year 1171 – Jewish citizens of Blois, France burnt alive.
Year 1209 – All Jews of Bezier, France, massacred.
Year 1221 – An entire Jewish neighbourhood of Erfurt, France annihilated, along with all reminder of Jewish life.
Year 1247 – all Jews living in Valreas, France, killed.
Year 1289 – 13 Jews murdered in Troyes, France.
Year 1321 – 5000 Jews murdered in Southern France, all belonging to the Shinon community burned alive.
Year 1328 – 5000 Jews of Navarre, France, brutally slaughtered.
…and this is just for starters. Let’s not get going on Germany, Spain and Austria, let alone venture outside of these two centuries as a perfect prelude to the Holocaust.
As inconvenient as it is to concern ourselves with “ancient” history of the presently suffering Notre Dame, we must have the elementary curiosity and courage to acknowledge places where antisemitic hatred culminated and flourished. Simply pining for the lost walls of the famous cathedral without understanding what’s depicted by the imposing and narrating facade sculptures, or not wanting to know the key role this Church played in world’s religiously rooted cancer, is nothing short of flagrant ignorance and convenient camouflage of truth.
Here’s the clincher: two Jewish philanthropists have pledged $122 Million for the reconstruction of Notre Dame apres fire: Brazil’s Lily Safra and L’Oreal owner Francoise Bettencourt Meyers.
Is this a manifestation of that flagrant ignorance of history by these two benevolent Jews? Or, are these the actions (forgiveness, sense of shared grief, community, love of neighbor, generosity, shared responsibility) based on values and ethics of Judaic teachings of the Talmud? The very Jewish holy book Notre Dame set ablaze to obliterate?
Edgar , Bear, and all commenters on and readers of this site: I guess you have all heard by now, but in case any of you haven’t, there has been another synogogue massacre in the United States, this one in California near San Diego. Here is the report on it in Arutz Sheva:
Edgar,Bear and I have been discussing how there has been a lot of antisemites in Europe for the past two thousand years. Unfortunately, they may be just as numerous in the present-day U.S. and they seem to be getting more and more vicious every day.
I go to a Chabad synagogue very similar to the one that was targeted today.
@ Bear Klein: Bear, I agree 1,000 per cent that this issue needs to be discussed among Jews. That’s why I am joining you in discussion it.
I can’t remember where I got this “50 percent” figure . It was just intended as an arbitrary guess or approximation, based on the confused and contradictory picture that emerges from the documentary record of Jewish life in Europe from Roman times to the present. Perhaps I was subconsciously thinking of the German vote in the last contested election permitted by the Nazi regime–although that vote was anything but free and fair, with the S.A. allowed to free assault opposition rallies, keep left-wing voters from reaching the poll=booths, and with the left-wing leaders rounded up before election day. At any rate, even with all that “help” the Nazi party and its ally only garned 52% of the vote, with 48% of the vote. In the last more or less free elections in 1932, the Nazis and their allies won between 40% and 45% of the vote, with the parties that did not express antisemitc views winning the rest.
It is clear, even though I don’t have any information on polls measuring public opinion about Jews before, during and after World War II, but it is clear from the documentary evidence that there were many antisemites throughout Europe, but also many who resisted antisemitism. England never denied Jews basic civil rights, including the right to vote, during the twentieth century; and Jews held high offices of state before and even during World War II (not so much afterwards, interestingly). Neither did Holland, Belgium and France before the Nazis conquered them. They were quick to to come out of the woodwork when the Nazis occupied these countries, but quickly crawled back into the woodwork after the Nazis lost the war. Similar patterns of legal and to some extent even social toleration existed in the Scandinavian countries, and even in Germany before 1933, and Austria and Italy before 1938.
There were extensive resistance organizations in France , Italy, Holland, and even in Germany itself, during the war, that between them enabled tens of thousands of Jews to escape death. In Switzerland, there was a Protestant humanitarian organization that exposed the Nazi Holocaust to the Swiss public. and succeeded in pressuring the Swiss government to end its denial of asylum to Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe. French Protestant villages in southern France hid tens of thousands of Jews from the Nazis and Vichy. Catholic religious orders hid many as well.Dutch Christians also managed to hide and save several thousand Dutch Jews None of this could have happened if all European Christians had been antisemities.
Obviously, European Gentiles were deeply divided about the “Jewish Question, ” and still are.
@ Bear Klein: All very true, Bear. But after all, your aunts experience proves that their were some Austrians who were not antisemites as well.
I read an interesting book, I forget the author and title, but it was about the descendants of Archduke Ferdinand, the Austrian archduke whose murder touched off World War I. It is based mainly on the memoirs of the Archduke’s granddaughter, but the author claims to have verified her stories from various government archives.
She claims that her father and uncle, the sons of the assassinated archduke, openly opposed the Anchluss, and were imprisoned by the Nazi regime as punishment. Her father was sent to Dachau and her uncle to Buchenwald. Her father was imprisoned for only a few months, but her uncle for four years. She says that both of them made many friends among the Jews in these camps, and learned to respect and admire Jews, despite the antisemitic attitudes of their late father.. They always shared the food parcels they were allowed to receive from their relatives with their fellow prisoners, who were mainly Jews, and ate very little of the food themselves. She claims that the health of both her father and and uncle was ruined by their stay is in the Nazi concentration camps, so that they both died, after the war, before the age of 60.
She says that both of her relatives always attended the annual reunions of survivors of the two camps and took part in their annual memorial marches to them, which aimed to keep the memory of the victims alive. Most of the other survivors who attended these reunions were Jews. They were always reunited with their Jewish friends from their camp days at these events and they always greeted each other warmly, their daughter-neice told the researcher.
@ Bear Klein: I aagree with you about this, Bear. I don’t know where I read the 50 per cent estimate of Austrian opinion. Before the Anchluss, there were many Austrian Social Democrats and Communists, who for the most part were not antisemites. Even the ruling righist party of Chancellors’ Dollfuss and Schusnigg, while tyrannical, were not pro-Nazi and did not endorse antisemitism, at least not openly. The Nazis brutally murdered Dollfuss in 1934 for resisting Anschluss. They imprisoned Schussnig in 1938 and kept him in the nototious Buchenwald concentration camp and for the duration of the war. He was freed by the U.S. Army in April 1945, a few days before he was scheduled for execution by the Nazis, but was only a living skeleton, having lost half of his weight. He was granted political asylum in the U.S. after the postwar Austrian government refused to readmit him to his own countries.
Your aunt’s experience shows that after all, there were some good Austrians.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:Yes there were good Austrians who were not Anti-Semities. How you get to any number let alone 50% is hard to understand. I had an aunt that was saved (hidden) by a Gentile who made it through the whole war in Vienna.
The place was cesspool of Nazi’s and collaborators. The culture of allowing a holocaust to take place was created by the epidemic antiSemitism that existed in places like Austria and the Catholic Church. That was the point of the thread in my view. That is the reason for commenting on what happen in history. If the Christian Israpundit readers are still following the thread that is why I believe it is worth discussing this and not being quiet on the matter of Christian AntiSemitism is important.
@ Bear Klein: The Jewish library is indeed an excellent source. Much better than the previously cited one.
@ Bear Klein: Bear, I never denied that there was serious discrimination against Jews and a great deal of antisemitism in pre-Hitler Austria. I only meant to suggest that a large numner of Jews managed to prosper, lead normal lives, and achieve many great things in spite of it. Also, that many individual Jews did earn the respect even of many of their Gentile neighbors and successive Austrian governments. Your own relatives numerous achievements and successes fully confirm this view of mine.
Many Austrians were implicated in the Holocaust. The Austrians were disproportionately represented in the S.S. But not all Austrians liked the Nazis or approved of the Holocaust. I think about half did not.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Another overview of Jewish Austrian History is found at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/austria-virtual-jewish-history-tour
At the end of the article you will find some book references.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
By the way my readings of Austrian Jewish History confirm the stories my family told me about significant discrimination and antiSemitism in Austria even while there are many Jewish success stories.
My mother’s family was very well to do business owners. My father’s father was a part owner/founder/player of what was then a world famous soccer team called HaKoach (“the Power it is a Hebrew Word) which was all Jewish players. A family friend who I met numerous times was a member the Austrian National Ski Team.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:The members of my family who survived the Holocaust ALL had told stories of significant antiSemitism in the years you claim there was no significant discrimination Their personal experiences and views differed with your theories. Then you are entitled to your theories.
@ Bear Klein: This narrative is more accurate than the previous one. It indicates that there was very little discrimination against Jews in Austria between 1867 and 1938, and that Jewish life flourished in the Austro-Hungarian Empire during this period as nowhere else in Europe.
There is, however, one out-of-sequence note:
Mozart did not live in “this time” that the authors discuss in the rest of this paragraph (1867-1938), but in the eighteenth century. He died in 1791, years before “this time.” Fanny Arnheim, about whom I know nothing, must have also lived in the eighteenth century as well. But if the reigning Emperor and other prominent Christians attended the salon of a Jewess, it suggests that even in the late eighteenth century, antsemitism was not all that bad in Austria.
We need to find a historian of Austrian Jews who is better organized, has a more orderly mind, with time sequences and is more reliable.
@ Bear Klein: This narrative has contradictory and inconsistent dates. If the Jews of Austria were expelled in 1648 and the expulsion was not repealed until 1848, how is it that there were a large number Jews, many of them prosperous, and the community’s leaders even prominent in court circles) for most of the years between these two dates? The authors say “
But how is this possible if they were expelled in 1648? If any kind of expulsion occurred in 1648, it must have been rescinded almost immediately.
If Maria Theresa ruled from 1740 to 1780, how could she possibly have been responsible for an antisemitic decree issued in 1727, as the author implies? Did she persuage her parents to issue it as a child?
Austria’s rulers never held the title of “King” Before Maria THeresa declared herself an Empress, the rulers of Austria had always had the title “Archduke.” They acknowledged themselves to be subject, at least in theory, to the suzereignty of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was always a German. King Leopold might have been the ruler of Bavaria, Bohemia, or even Hungary.
These authors are very confused, and their narrative is not a reliable source. Even so, they acknowledge that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as it had become over the years, did grant the Jews legal equality (not full social equality, to be sure (in 1867). In general, most Austrian Jews managed to do pretty well for themselves for much of Austrian history from early medieval times until Hitler’s takeover in 1938, despite considerable discrimination. Not all Austrian rulers, and not all ordinary Austrian Christians, were antisemites.
Jewish Austrian History After 1867 After the Emancipation
https://www.bh.org.il/jewish-spotlight/austria/modern-era/history/after-1867/
Austrian Jewish History – Before the Emancipation
https://www.bh.org.il/jewish-spotlight/austria/modern-era/history/until-1867/
@ Adam Dalgliesh:Your impression that the discrimination was only unofficial is charming but not accurate.
My mother told me in great detail how Jews were separated (segregated) from the other students in the same school. This something she had repeated numerous because it had bothered her greatly.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:It was not my grandfather but perhaps a Great Grandfather or earlier generation. It is family handed down story. The details are lost in history. One may accept it or not, it matters not.
By the way royalty in Europe borrowed money from rich people in past centuries.
All my grandparents on my mothers side were murdered in the Holocaust and all but a few relatives were killed. My mother died a few years ago now at the age of 97 and her eldest sister a few years earlier at the age of 101. We are talking about something that happen in the 1800s.
Bear,the story that your grandfather told about having loaned money to the Emperor of Austria and then having been stiffed strikes me as an oversimplification of what happened. The Emperors had vast wealth and rarely needed private loans–except perhaps, if they accumulated a huge gambling debt or were being blackmailed by a woman. While the Emperors could probably get away with dipping into the public till to handle this situation, they would be criticized for doing so by officials of the royal court and some members of the nobility. The last Emperor of Austria but one, also named Franz Joseph, was in fact blackmailed by women who bore him illegitimate children, so that they would not reveal this in public.
However, one would have to be very high up in Austrian society, perhaps a member of the nobility or one of the richest bankers in the country, for the Emperor to approach him and request a private, probably secret, loan. Was your grandfather really this high up?
It would be much more likely that your grandfather purchased a large number of Austrian government bonds and was stiffed. Many Austrians invested heavily in government bonds, both before and during World War I. They were thought to be very safe investments. But after the war, the Austrian republic refused to repay any of the bondholders, claiming that the war had left it flat broke. Many Austrian citizens, including many Jews, were left destitute–including Theodore Herzl’s children, who had invested heavily in these bonds. I have a suspicion, although I admit without the slightest evidence to back it up, that that is what happended to your grandfather. Do you have a living relative that you could ask about this possibility?
@ Bear Klein: Bear, fascinating. But its hard to know how accurate family traditions are. For example, your father might have been excluded from the Baker’s trade by a private baker’s union or trade association rather than an official government decree. In America, too, private unions and business associations also excluded Jews from some occupations, or limited their numbers through quotas. This practice was especially prevalent at private colleges, including the Ivy League schools. In fact, some private colleges still exclude Jews. When I was interviewed for a teaching job at Baylor University, in Texas, in my younger days, I was told bluntly that the college did not hire Jews after they asked my religion. I was told exactly the same thing when I was interviewed for a job at a Catholic college (St. John’s University) on Staten Island. On the other hand, my mom taught at another Catholic college, Marist, in Poughkeepsie, for thirty years! Go figure.
Jewish students were certainly bullied and harassed at Austrian schools. And it wouldn’t suprise me at all if some of them maintained discriminatory quotas of Jews. Whether that was a result of government laws or the policies of individual schools is however a separate question. Some Jews did attend elite Austrian schools and universities, and even graduated from them. Theodore Herzl, for example. On the other hand, Herzl certainly was bullied in college and was more or less driven out of a fraternity that had initially admitted him by anti-semitic speeches by officers of the fraternity. This helped to form his Zionist consciousness.
However, it is my impression that most of this discrimination was “informal” and “unofficial,” not compelled by government laws or decrees. This was the pattern in nearly all of the European countries that had granted Jews legal equality, such as England, France and Germany. Although individual institutions and employers were not required to discriminate against Jews, neither were they forbiddenfrom doing so. This same situation existed in the United States until the passage of the civil rights acts in 1965 and subsequently. And even today, as I found out to my considerable annoyance and shock, some discrimination against Jews is still legally permitted in the United States.
Although the Catholic Church was in general not a loving institution toward Jews, far from it, even here there were occasional exceptions. A twentieth-century Scots historian of Catholic antisemitism (can’t remember his name) points out one notable exception, Innocent XIII , a pope of the thirteenth century (around when Notre Dame was still under construction). Innocent reversed the antisemitic record of his thirteenth century predecessors. He wrote hundreds of letters to noblemen throughout Europe. who were illegally holding Jews prisoner, extorting ransoms from them, raping Jewish women, etc. and ordered them to stop this behavior. He even wrote many letters to nobles who refused to repay the loans they had obtained from Jewish moneylenders, pointing out that the moneylenders and their wives and children would starve if their loans weren’t repaid. And he wrote these letters to help Jewish moneylenders to collect even though the Church, in theory, was opposed to moneylending.
Innocent wrote these letters after he was told about these injustices by delegations from the Jewish community in Rome. He always received these delegations kindly, and always promised to do what he could to help. And then he always followed up and did what he could.
He also played chess with the Chief Rabbi of Rome, whom he regarded as a personal friend, nearly every day. I don’t know who won their games!
Most important, Innocent XIII published an encyclical, sent to the bishops throughout the Catholic realms, “absolving” the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. Citing New Testament verses, he maintained that only the small group of “priests, elders, and doctors of the law” whom the New Testament claims brought accusations against Jesus before Pilate were to blame. He pointed out that no other Jews of that time brought any accusations against Jesus, and that many of his Jewish contemporaries were supportive of him and grieved when he was put to death. As for the Jews of all subsequent generations, including his own time, all were innocent of Jesus’ death. He did restate Church’s theological disagreements with Judaism. But he denied that Jews were doomed to hellfire as a result of these differences.
Innocent XIII also halted the savage massacre of hundreds of thousands of Christian “heretics” (non-Catholics) by papal armies. The thirteenth-century popes who preceded Innocent had launched these armies to crush a Christian non-Catholic (and hence heretical) sect in southern France that had gained hundreds of thousands of adherents , who no longer attended Catholic churches. These papal armies destroyed hundreds of villages, burned hundreds of thousands of “heretics” at the stake, and also tens of thousands of Jews while they were at it. Sometimes hereics and Jews are reported by contemporary historians to have marched into the flames holding each others hands and walking arm and arm, while singing hymns of their respective faiths.
In any event, Innocent called a halt to these massacres during his approximately forty year reign. They resumed after his death, however.
Subequent popes ignored Innocent XIII’s teachings about Jews until the late twentieth century. However, the document produced by the Vatican II Council in 1964, and approved by Pope Paul VI, not only repeated all of Innocent XIII’s arguments, but even repeated the wording of his encyclical almost word for word when “absolving” the Jews of responsibility for the death of Christ. (I don’t know if they quoted and cited Innocent or simply plagiarized him). In any case, the guy was seven centuries ahead of his time.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:Jews Did NOT have equality in Austria. There were quota’s on how many Jews could be in certain trades. My father for example want to be a Baker (as his Uncle was) but was prohibited. He became a Printer which actually served him well. He ended up running some printing plants in the USA.
Also they discriminated in schools against Jews. Jews were mistreated in various ways, they were easy victims. On my mother’s side of the family they lent a large sum of money to the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He decided he did not need to pay them back. They were powerless to do anything about it. They changed the family name to Borgenicht, which means do not lend, as a passive protest.
@ Bear Klein: Very accurate and relevant comments, Bear.
Judaism was never banned in Poland. It was never entirely banned in Russia after Russia annexed Poland between 1770 and 1793. The government did ban Jews from many towns and cities, but not from all villages. Some new Jewish villages were permitted to be founded, especially in the southern Ukraine and the Crimea. And “exceptional” Jews were sometimes permitted to live in the towns and cities where Jews in general were officially banned, especially if they paid the bribes that were extorted from them. Jewish worship, the existence of synogogues, and limited self-government for Jewish communities was permitted by the Tsars.
The closest Russia came to banning Judaism was during the Communist-Bolshevik period. Only a handful of Jewish synogogues and rabiis survived. The Bolsheviks did allow individual Jews who supported their policies to serve in governmental positions when they first took power, and at first there were many Jews in the Soviet government, although eventually nearly all of them the were weeded out. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Jews have been allowed to freely practice their religion and many synogogues have reopened, although the Russian Orthodox Church remains antisemitic.
The Habsburg Empire did have a large Jewish population, and to the best of my knowledge its rulers never expelled the Jews from their realm. In the eigtheenth century, I think it was 1768, the Emperor Franz Joseph issued an Edict of Toleration that granted Jews freedom of worship and the right to live everywhere in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, although it did not grant them full legal equality. I think that legal equality was granted to the Jews sometime in the nineteenth century, although of course antisemitism persisted. Hitler of course revived”discrimination” on a murderous scale when he seized Austria in 1938.
I don’t think Prussia ever expelled its Jewish inhabitants, although it discriminated against them. In 1870 the new German Kaiser, who was also the King of Prussia, and had been for some years, finally lifted all legal discrimination against Jews, both in Prussia and in all of Germany. This state of legal equality (although definitely not an end to antisemitism), persisted until Hitler took power in 1933.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:The Love part was expressed how? You are intellectualizing or soft pedaling something that did not happen in practice on any significant scale. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. All I see is hate, killing Jews, demonizing them during this period by the Catholics.
Did you forget the Spanish Institution when you said Judaism was rarely banned in any European Country. It was banned in France, what is Spain, Portugal, England, Aragon, Lithuania (which in the past was a large country). Some of the places it was not banned had virtually no Jews. So only the then Central European Countries was Judaism not banned.
See map on attached link where Judaism was banned. https://brilliantmaps.com/jews-europe-1500/
Christians actually had a complicated love-hate relationship with Judaism at this time, and throughout most of history. The frieze representing “Saints” Anne and Jehoachim, for example, faithfully represents a contemporary, 13th century French synogogue–comlete with Bima, mehitzh, etc. The worshippers and rabbi are dressed in authentic 13th century Jewish costumes and are not caricatured. This is of course in contrast to the depiction of “Synagoga” in the statue described by Ms. Sobel. But even that sculpture alludes to to the past, allegedly faded, glory of the synagogue.
“Pagan,” polytheistic religions were completely banned in Chritian Europe. Those practicing polytheistic faiths were labeled “witches” or “wizards,” and when exposed were nearly always put to death.
While the numerous massacres of Jews that Ms. Sobel records certainly occurred, the practice of Judaism was rarely banned completely in most European countries, and it was never completely banned throughout the entire continent. As aresult it survived in Europe until the 20th century, and even to a limited extent today. Even “Saint” Louis never banned it completely in his realm.
Despite the widespread hatred for and persecution of Jews, Christians were well aware that Judaism was the “parent religion” of their own, and that there would have been no Christianity without Judaism. Their rage at Jews was thus a “parricidal” rage. Very Freudian.
I think what Ms. Sobel is missing is the complex love-hate relationship of the Church with Judaism. The glorification of Sts. Anne (Hannah) and Jehoiakim are examples of this. The freize which honors them in Cathedral portrays a 13th century French synogogue interior quite lovingly and accurately, The bimah, the mehitzah (partition between male and female seats, etc. Congrgants and the rabbi are shown wearing contemporary Jewish clothing, and their faces aren’t caricatured, unlike the mocking statue of Synagog” elsewhere in the Cathedral.
The widespread appropriation of the Star of David as a Christian symbol is another example of this love-hate relationship with Judaism.
Of course Jews bore the brunt of the hate side of these conflicted and confused Christian emotions. THere is no possible excuse for the numerous massacres of Jews. However, we should notice that the Christians rarely banned Judaism entirely, although they did ban all “pagan” polytheistic worship. The pre-Christian polytheistic religions, such as the worship of the Greaco-Roman gods, were banned completely, and more or less disappeared completely-while Judaism did not. It is hard to bring oneself to completely obliterate one’s parents.
Even “Saint” Louis !X did not completely ban Judaism in his realm. Since Judaism was never totally banned throughout all of Europe, it was able to survive there until the twentieth century, and toa very limited extent even now.
While the life of a Jew was always at risk in the Middle Ages, a practitioner of “pagan” worship was ipso facto regarded as a “witch” oe “wizard” and was almost certain to be put to death.
Judaism was the “father” and “mother” of Christianity, and most Christians, including priests were well aware of this although they only talked about it obliquely. Their homicidal rage at Jews was also a “parricidal” rage. Chritians suffered from both an “Oedipus” complex and an “Orestes” complex. Very Greek, and very Freudian.
The answer to the last question is: It is a manifestation of the execrable self hate and assimilation subscribed to by too much of the American Jewish Community.
For there to be forgiveness, there has to be knowledge and repentance. CF: The Amidah.