On the Jews and Their Lies
In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[14] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[15] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[16] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[17] afforded no legal protection,[18] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[19] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[20] Luther claims that Jewish history was "assailed by much heresy", and that Christ swept away the Jewish heresy and goes on to do so, "as it still does daily before our eyes." He stigmatizes Jewish Prayer as being "blasphemous" (sic) and a lie, and vilifies Jews in general as being spiritually "blind" and "surely possessed by all devils." Luther has a special spiritual problem with Jewish circumcision.[21][22] The full context in which Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain in On the Jews and Their Lies is as follows in Luther's own words:
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.[23]Notice "We are at fault in not slaying them" is quoted twice in this excerpt. In the first occurrence, Wikipedia states Luther "seems" to advocate murdering the Jews. In the second occurrence, Wikipedia prefaces the quote stating, "Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain." The first occurrence dates back to the original 2008 Wikipedia entry where the quote appears at the beginning of their synopsis, stating, "He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing 'We are at fault in not slaying them.'" Over time the article was expanded. This comment and quote changed to, "He also seems to advocate their murder, writing '[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.'" This was later moved into a new subsection covering Luther's book, On The Jews and Their Lies. The second occurrence was added in September 2016 in the same subsection. It appears someone was attempting to provide "the full context" of the quote "in which Martin Luther advocated that Jews be slain."
There were too many hands in the Wikipedia cookie jar: note the incoherence which happens when multiple people edit an entry. Did Luther "seem" to sanction exterminating Jewish people or did he actually actively "advocate" the Jews be slain? Whoever added the alleged "full context" does not appear to have proofed the entry for internal consistency.
While Luther's comment is atrocious and can be classified as antisemitic, I will argue this comment, placed in context, is not actively advocating the murder of Jews. Lest there be any misunderstanding: I am not arguing that Luther's comment, "we are at fault in not slaying them" is not blatantly antisemitic or that Luther should be excused for the comment. Rather, what I think is happening with the quote is that it's being used to make Luther worse than he was: yes, he's guilty of harsh rhetoric against the Jews, yes he's guilty of advocating societal cruelty on the Jews, but he is not guilty of calling for their extermination in this quote.
Documentation
For the first use of the quote, Wikipedia cites, "Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, cited in Michael, Robert. 'Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews,' Encounter 46 (Autumn 1985) No. 4:343–344." The first part of the reference refers to Luther's treatise, though no page location is given. The second part of the reference is to an article by historian Robert Michael, who specialized in the study of antisemitism. Michael states,
For his Luther quotes, Michael provides a footnote referring to LW 47, 242, 265, 167. Page 242 refers to "archthieves. . . who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves." Page 265 refers to the bulk of the quote provided, save the last line, "We are at fault for not slaying them," which is supposed to be on page 167; Michael though made error, the quote is found on page 267.
The second reference provided by Wikipedia is "Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 47:267." The reference is accurate. There are two minor additions to the quote as presented by Wikipedia: "them" has been replaced with [the Jews], and the reference, "[Deuteronomy 28:28]" is not found on page 267 at this location in this English text.
Context
Now behold what a fine, thick, fat lie they pronounce when they say that they are held captive by us. Jerusalem was destroyed over fourteen hundred years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about three hundred years, as we said earlier. We might well complain that during that time they held us Christians captive and killed us, which is the plain truth. Furthermore, we do not know to the present day which devil brought them into our country. We surely did not bring them from Jerusalem.
In addition, no one is holding them here now. The country and the roads are open for them to proceed to their land whenever they wish. If they did so, we would be glad to present gifts to them on the occasion; it would be good riddance. For they are a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a sheer misfortune for our country. Proof for this is found in the fact that they have often been expelled forcibly from a country, far from being held captive in it. Thus they were banished from France (which they call Tsorfath, from Obadiah), which was an especially fine nest. Very recently they were banished by our dear Emperor Charles from Spain, the very best nest of all (which they called Sefarad, also on the basis of Obadiah). This year they were expelled from the entire Bohemian crownland, where they had one of the best nests, in Prague. Likewise, during my lifetime they have been driven from Regensburg, Magdeburg, and other places.
If you cannot tolerate a person in a country or home, does that constitute holding him in captivity? In fact, they hold us Christians captive in our own country. They let us work in the sweat of our brow to earn money and property while they sit behind the stove, idle away the time, fart, and roast pears. They stuff themselves, guzzle, and live in luxury and ease from our hard-earned goods. With their accursed usury they hold us and our property captive. Moreover, they mock and deride us because we work and let them play the role of lazy squires at our expense and in our land. Thus they are our masters and we are their servants, with our property, our sweat, and our labor. And by way of reward and thanks they curse our Lord and us! Should the devil not laugh and dance if he can enjoy such a fine paradise at the expense of us Christians? He devours what is ours through his saints, the Jews, and repays us by insulting us, in addition to mocking and cursing both God and man.
They could not have enjoyed such good times in Jerusalem under David and Solomon with their own possessions as they now do with ours, which they daily steal and rob. And yet they wail that we have taken them captive. Indeed, we have captured them and hold them in captivity just as I hold captive my gallstone, my bloody tumor, and all the other ailments and misfortunes which I have to nurse and take care of with money and goods and all that I have. Alas, I wish that they were in Jerusalem with the Jews and whomever else they would like to have there.
Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus’ mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are haria, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! (LW 47: 265-267)
Conclusion
Luther in context is bombastically arguing against the oppression of the Jews, saying rather that the Jews are oppressing the Germans! He presents the ludicrous argument that it is they that are benefiting off German land, at the expense of the Germans. He further takes as true the the rumors that the Jews were killing German children and poisoning wells. "We are at fault in not slaying them" is part of a ridiculous rhetorical argument in which Luther accepts the negative Jewish stereotypes of his day, then he attempts to present the case that despite these Jewish crimes, the Germans were gracious and kind to the Jews. The argument is absurd.
Recall Wikipedia claimed to be giving, "the full context."Notice that the quote continues after the point where Wikipedia stops. Luther is not saying that the Germans should go out and kill the Jews. He's saying that if all the negative things are true about the Jews are true (as he previously stated, like killing children, poisoning wells, etc.), the Germans were at moral fault for allowing them to live. Rather, Germany has allowed them "to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property..." This is a rhetorical descriptive argument. It is not a prescription to go out and kill Jews.
Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons":
And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. (LW 47:274)While Luther may be acquitted here from advocating murder, he is not vindicated for his antisemitism by the context of The Jews and Their Lies. He did make sinful comments against the Jews, some of which did advocate violence and oppression. For instance, he was so against Judaism by this point that he advocated that "they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country" (LW 47:286). Some scholars have argued there were theological reasons why he made such harsh comments against the Jews, but I've found none of them to be so compelling as to exonerate him from the charge of antisemitism. Advocating cruelty to human beings, particularly basing it on unfounded rumors, is truly a dark spot on Luther's career. On the other hand, making Luther worse than he was by saying in the quote explored above that he wanted the Jews slain... this is presenting a contextual error. What the quote shows in its "full context" is that Luther presented an argument based on accepting unsubstantiated and slanderous rumors about the Jews.
You maybe have read this apologetic,
ReplyDeleteIn order to put Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in some immediate religious context, it is helpful to see what other Christian figures were saying about Jews just prior to 1543. In 1529, Andreas Osiander authored a tract[20], published anonymously in 1540, that systematically and forcefully refuted the charge of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. Osiander was a Christian Hebraist who engaged in the study of Cabbala and had a thorough knowledge of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. He argued that it is “inconceivable that the Jews should murder children and make use of their blood” when their own Kosher laws forbade them even to eat the meat of animals containing blood. The treatise appeared just as the investigation of one such supposed murder at Tittingen was ongoing.[21]
Enraged by Osiander’s defense of the Jewish community and called upon by the Bishop of Eichstätt to rebut it, Johannes Eck, Catholic theologian and Luther’s nemesis, wrote what amounts to a lengthy retort to Osiander and a denigration of Judaism. It has been described as “a compendium of every horror story medieval anti-Jewish polemic could encompass.”[22] In Refutation of a Jew-Book, Eck based his passionate argument of the historical reality of Jewish ritual murder on his own personal experience. According to Eck, he had actually “placed his own fingers in the wound of a child who had died four weeks before at the hand of the Jews of Waldkirch in the Breisgau in 1503.”[23] The book also includes a call for “new and more stringent laws” against Jews[24] and strong condemnation of usury.
http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html
Hi PBJ:
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the info. I don't recall ever going over Osiander's book, but I'd have to check my archives. On the other hand, I'm aware of Eck's work against the Jews.
Eck's material is quite useful when Rome's defenders bring up Luther's comments about the Jews. It's actually relatively easy to shut a Roman Catholic apologist down when they bring up Luther's negative Jewish rhetoric because the Roman church has a past riddled with antisemitism. It's a blatant double standard when they utilize Luther's anti-Jewish material while their own church went far beyond Luther's harsh suggestions. See for instance,
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/03/luthers-comments-about-jews-vs-papal.html
and also:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/luther-vs-rome-on-jews.html
It's more difficult to defend Luther say, against a Jewish apologist. My perspective on Luther and the Jews has changed over the years, and I credit Eric Gritsch's book, Martin Luther's Anti-semitism. See my post here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/12/recent-research-into-luthers-anti.html
It all comes down to how one defines antisemitism, and I was persuaded by Gritsch to define the word in a modern sense. However, this does not mean I now buy all the charges against Luther. While I may come down harder now Luther on this topic, this doesn't mean I'm now arguing Luther was Hitler's spiritual ancestor (Peter Wiener).
Given current trends in left-wing censorship, I attempted to be as careful as possible in this post to say I think Luther's attitude towards the Jews was wrong, and not to be condoned, in any way.
Glad if Osiander's work is helpful, and indeed it is duplicitous for RCs to rail on Luther for his words against the Jews in te light of how the church they seek to defend dealt with Jews. Regarding which I have posted a compilation .
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for the two links, regardless of what left-wing censorship demands. What led me to Osiander's work was seeking to find out how credible the charges were against the Jews. I have a special affection for the Jews, and Israel (not because I think this will hasten the "rapture" - which is actually the 1st resurrection the way i see it ), but while not affirming all Luther said, much less his attitude and recommendations, to say the least i do not think they were characteristically easily lovable (neither did Moses or Paul!), being known for altruism and running Salvation Army programs, but may have been rather characteristically stubborn and difficult an insular people overall who earned a negative social reputation. Which does not excuse the whole negative attitude of Rome or Luther toward them.
Oh BTW, i think you would like this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/suspendedinherjar/2018/10/two-catholic-churches/
ReplyDeleteThe link is to a "404" error.
ReplyDelete"Whoever added the alleged "full context" does not appear to have proofed the entry for internal consistency."
ReplyDeleteThat is not what wikis are built for.
Take them as encyclopedian polyphony.
Very probably, if you compare versions, someone would have stated "advocated" and someone else amended to "seems to advocate".
Guess why?
My mentioning of the internal inconsistencies of Wikipedia are, in part, to display the weaknesses and unreliability of Wikipedia. I've heard that there are internal petty squabbles among those who contribute information to the entries, someone adds something, someone deletes it, back and forth...
ReplyDeleteThis particular blog entry of mine was provoked by an online discussion with someone relying on Wikipedia for the Luther quote in question. A person kept posting the quote over and over, and kept saying, Wikipedia provides the full-context.
I'm not advocating completely avoiding Wikipedia, only that one should use caution.
James Swan , you should see this blog by
DeleteJoe Whitehead , the blog is zionism-now.blogspot.com with an article about Luther headlined
"Martin Luther and the Jews" on
Friday, October 5, 2007
What do you think of the Statements and Arguments this blog says about Luther and the many comments people gave
Mr. Swan , do you have a response to the Joe Whitehead blog about Martin Luther , and the Various Comments people gave
ReplyDeleteI have not looked at it yet.
ReplyDeleteJS
OK, let me know what you think
DeleteAnonymous said...OK, let me know what you think
ReplyDeleteI found the post you mentioned.
Overall, it's a very typical presentation of the subject from someone arguing from emotion rather than logic. True, the subject is complicated and separating emotion completely isn't easily accomplished, nor entirely prudent.
The post is from 2007... which is now over a decade and a half ago. It would require a number of hours to go through and respond to the post (and 200+ comments). If one were to consult my blog entries on Luther and the Jews, I have already responded to the basic arguments.
I have a lengthy paper on this topic found here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220115/http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_Jews.htm
Also, I have 20+ entries on the same topic found here:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews
Also I noticed that someone in the comments section of that blog article posted a number of snippets from qualified authors responding to the content.
There is no simple answer to Luther's attitude towards the Jews, but if forced to give a Twitter-esque short answer:
There are two extremes:
-Luther was evil and played a role in causing Nazi Germany
-Luther was a great Reformer whose character is beyond reproach
I defend neither of these extremes.
JS
Mr. Swan , so for the most part you disagree with Joe Whitehead in his arguments against Luther and Luther Apologists
DeleteIn your personal opinion do you think Martin Luther would have supported Hitler and the Extermination of 6 Million Jews during the Holocaust , some claim Luther would have , while others argue that the Murder of 6 Million Jews would have been too Extreme even for Luther
In your personal opinion do you think Martin Luther would have supported Hitler and the Extermination of 6 Million Jews during the Holocaust , some claim Luther would have , while others argue that the Murder of 6 Million Jews would have been too Extreme even for Luther
ReplyDeleteYour question is hypothetical and anachronistic, so my answer will be hypothetical and anachronistic.
Later in his life, I think it could be argued that Luther wanted to have the Jews expelled from Germany. This would be because he believed Judaism was a false religion that was proselytizing Christians. Luther lumped Judaism in with the Papists, Islam, and the enthusiasts. If Hitler was simply going to expel Jews from Germany, it's hypothetically possible Luther would've been in favor of Hitler doing that, even if Hitler had completely different reasons for expelling the Jews from Germany.
On the other hand, the 16th century written record does not support Luther adhering to genocide, so I do not think he would have supported murdering 6 million people.
Mr. Swan , the thing is the Blog post by Joe Whitehead
ReplyDeletezionism-now.blogspot.com
"Martin Luther and the Jews" on
Friday, October 5, 2007 , it seems that Mr. Whitehead does indeed use plenty of logic in condemning Luther and also much logic in refuting , debunking the arguments of
Luther Apologists , many people posted good comments on the blog . Yes, Mr. Whitehead used emotion, but plenty of Logic as well . I apologize if I'm being redundant
Anonymous said: Mr. Whitehead does indeed use plenty of logic in condemning Luther and also much logic in refuting, debunking the arguments of Luther Apologists
ReplyDeleteI consider Luther's comments on Judaism horrible. I don't recall ever reading a "Luther apologist" saying Luther's comments on the Jews were wonderful or acceptable. If you know of a "Luther apologist" arguing in favor of Luther's comments about the Jews, please provide a link. I'd like to see it.
In terms of logic, I stand against any who make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments linking Luther to Nazi Germany.
Mr. Swan , an Example of
ReplyDeleteLuther Apologists Arguments is that while they agree that what Luther said about the Jews was hideous, terrible and deeply disturbing, and there is no excuse for that Hatred they argue
That
1. Luther was a product of his time, which was Very Anti-Jewish
2. Luther was Very Vicious and Nasty towards all of his Opponents, Not Just Jews , that Luther said very Hateful Things towards All his opponents
3. That when Luther wrote his Sickening Rants against the Jews, he was old and in poor Mental and Physical Health
4. That Luther's Hate against the Jews was purely Religious, Not Racial, although his Hatred towards Jews did indeed have a Racial Component
5. That we are all sinners and no one is perfect , etc
Joe Whitehead on his blog commented on and Refuted these and other Arguments used by
Luther Apologists , as well as the comments people gave on the blog
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn regard generally to your list of 5, my opinion is that each has a grain or more of truth except #3. I don’t recall ever arguing Luther’s “mental health” and “physical health” produced “sickening rants.” Quite the contrary, I think Luther ranted against his opponents (or what he viewed as anti-Christian) his entire career. Therefore, your #2 is blatantly true… but it does not dismiss Luther’s comments about the Jews or others.
Your #4 is a contradiction: something cannot be “purely” but yet not be pure. I’m not aware of anyone arguing “Luther's Hate against the Jews was purely Religious, Not Racial” but “his hatred had a racial component.” This doesn’t make sense. Something cannot be pure and not pure at the same time. I've written about recent trends in Luther studies on the definition of the term anti-semitism. My own position has changed over the years, moving away from seeing Luther's comments as merely anti-Judaism and more towards seeing his comments as direct towards physical human beings. He did write against Judaism, but his remarks also had a physical-human-person aspect as well, maybe not to the same extent as his anti-Judaism comments, but his written attacks do go beyond Jewish theology.
Number 1 is valid in a sense depending on whom one is offering the “apology” to. For instance, some Roman Catholic apologists attempt to discredit Luther’s theology by bringing up Luther’s anti-Jewish writings. In that case, Rome’s defenders are guilty of a blatant double standard, because… during Luther’s “time” the Roman church also had “anti-Jewish” sentiment. Therefore, if the argument one is making works against one’s own position, it’s an invalid argument. Similarly with #5, when Rome’s defenders argue that Luther was a gross antinomian therefore his theology is invalid, Rome’s defenders are imposing an impossible standard: it is to say that one must live a life of perfection in order for their work to have validity. By their own standard, they refute themselves.
My own take is that Luther did say horrible things against the Jews and others. For those comments he deserves to be chastised and not excused. Despite these comments, Luther’s career as a theologian and Reformer is not negated. To make an absurd analogy: an axe murder that figures out how to cure cancer does not have his cure for cancer negated by his axe murdering.
Joe Whitehead on his blog commented on and Refuted these and other Arguments used by
ReplyDeleteLuther Apologists , as well as the comments people gave on the blog
One last thing, I have a few questions for you:
What is the reason you continually bring up "Joe Whitehead"?
Are you Mr. Whitehead?
What are you expecting that I glean from his entry?
Thanks.
No, I'm Not Joe Whitehead, but I do greatly like his blog , and contributed most of the comments , are you aware of Dr. Michael L. Brown , he is a famous Messianic Jew, Jewish Believer in Jesus who wrote about the Anti-Semitism of Martin Luther
ReplyDeleteAnd RC Apologists sometimes agree that what certain past popes and their church said and did against the Jews was regretful, they argue that Luther was worse, as if he actually was and did could do what Rome did:
ReplyDeleteIn The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,
“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).
In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.
Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.
But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.
In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.
It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.
“When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series provided by Swan (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .
Thanks PBJ.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite argument against Rome's defenders on this topic is this:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/03/luthers-comments-about-jews-vs-papal.html
In summary:
Rome's defenders: Luther wanted to persecute the Jews, therefore, his work in the Reformation was invalid.
Response: Consider the Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans." Property was to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians."
As regards rationalization, David I. Kertzer also adds,
ReplyDeleteFollowing eleven years’ work, in 1998 a high-level Vatican commission instituted by Pope John Paul II offered what has become the official position of the Roman Catholic Church denying any responsibility for fomenting the kind of demonization of the Jews that made the Holocaust possible. In a 2001 book, The popes against the Jews, I demonstrated that in fact the church played a major role in leading Catholics throughout Europe to view Jews as an existential threat. Yet defenders of the church position continue to deny the historical evidence and to launch ferocious ad hominem attacks against scholars who have researched the subject. The anti-Semitism promulgated by the church can be seen as part of the long battle it waged against modernity, with which the Jews were identified...
I share with Favret-Saada the experience of having been so struck by the church’s 1998 apologia pro se, “We remember,” that I was motivated to write a book presenting an account of the past that the long-awaited Vatican document had so artfully obfuscated. I was able to take advantage of the recent opening of the archives of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, along with the wealth of documents available in the Vatican Secret Archive, to trace the church’s demonization of the Jews. The resulting book, The popes against the Jews: The Vatican’s role in the rise of modern anti-Semitism, published in 2001 used both those archival sources and the church’s own publications for the period 1880–1940 to show the fallacy of the distinction made between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. As Favret-Saada notes, it is on this distinction that “We remember” bases its claim...
The fact is that, in the wake of the granting of equal rights to Western Europe’s Jews—a nineteenth-century development fiercely opposed by the Catholic Church—the church repeatedly tried to spread the alarm against a rapacious Jewish people bent on reducing all Christians to their slaves. Catholics were warned to beware of their Jewish neighbors, deemed members of a secret world conspiracy responsible not only for capitalism but also for communism.
Read on: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800995/
Also, continuing the duplicity of RCs attacking explanations for Luther's words and counsel against the Jews while excusing of rationalizing Rome treatment of Jews, the latter extended to its opposition to a Jewish state, and its comparative affirmation of Muslims.
ReplyDeleteBegging from way back in January 1904,
Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, met with Pope Pius X to ask for his support for the Zionist enterprise.7 The Pope's response was swift and certain: We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem-but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people...
After the Six Day War...In December 1993, the Vatican signed an Accord with Israel...t shortly after signing the 1993 Vatican-Israel Accord the Vatican moved toward establishing official links with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). - https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=scholar
Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism...The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the pastoral approach towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid Conference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with….
Following an election in Israel in which Netanyahu declared that "no Palestinian state would be established on his watch," the Vatican announced it would approve a treaty that includes recognition of the state of Palestine. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations#Zionism%2C_Israel_and_the_Holy_See_before_and_after_1993
As an overview:
Evangelists see the return of the Jews to their Homeland of the Jews as a Divine plan, but for many Muslims and Christians, it can only be an accident of history, a parenthesis to be erased whenever possible.1 Today, many continue to consider the existence of the State of Israel only as a political reality.
The Holy See2 has ridiculed and fought the Zionist project for an entire century. The Jews were condemned to eternal dispersal, far from Jerusalem and the Holy Land, until the Day of Judgment and the conversion of all non-Christians...
The Jews…returned to their Land, and 45 years after Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, the Holy See finally recognized Israel on December 30, 1993, several years after the peace treaty with Egypt (1979).3…
On February 15, 2000, the Holy See concluded a basic agreement with the PLO representing the Palestinians The Comprehensive Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Palestine expresses:…full support for an independent, sovereign, democratic and viable State of Palestine on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, living side by side in peace and security with all its neighbors.9 - https://jcpa.org/article/the-holy-see-and-israel-the-historic-fight-against-the-jews-and-their-state/
Also, continuing the duplicity of RCs attacking explanations for Luther's words and counsel against the Jews while excusing of rationalizing Rome treatment of Jews, the latter extended to its opposition to a Jewish state, and its comparative affirmation of Muslims.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed a decrease in Rome's defenders going after Luther's attitude toward the Jews. It was typically only the low-hanging fruit that used to frequent the Catholic Answers forums. Since those forums closed, I'm not sure where they all are now, I suspect Twitter or Facebook.
Ah... and then there was the time when one of Rome's more popular defenders was calling me a "Nazi."
Meanwhile, the above actually relates to the Biblical principal of both guilt and punishment, the degree of the latter based upon not only the type of crime, its degree of iniquity (and there are different degrees of sin, and categories of it) but degree of complicity and accountability.
Delete"And all the jury concluded that the defendant was guilty of the crime he was charged with, but recommended a lenient sentence in the light of context, that of motive, provocations, and the condition of the defendant at the time.'
And the treatment of Jews by popes and its treatment of slavery has been explained as being objective.
Catholic Answers forums banned itself.
DeleteJames Swan & Everyone Else, I think we can All Agree that Anti-Semitism ,
ReplyDeleteJew-Hatred, Anti-Israel Hatred is a Terrible Sin, Anti-Zionism is Indeed Anti-Semitism . The thing is If, If Martin Luther is in Heaven, which I seriously doubt, has his Evil, Wickedness & Jew-Hatred been purged out of him ? If Luther is currently in Heaven, is he still a Vile Anti-Semite. ? I think God still definitely holds Martin Luther responsible for the Holocaust even if Luther would have Not personally approved of full scale Extermination of 6 Million Jews
Anti-Semitism , Jew-Hatred is Worse and an Infinitely More Evil, Wicked Sin than Racism against any other Group of People, because of how Jews have always suffered Everywhere all the time throughout human history, More than all Other Groups of People COMBINED, Anti-Semitism is the Ultimate Evil Racial Sin , and also because of all the Psychological Harm & Self-Hatred & Inferiority Complex that it causes Jews and people who are part-Jewish.
If some Individuals are Vile Anti-Semites, Jew-Haters and Anti-Israel Losers, that by itself is a Horrible Sin and by itself should cause God to condemn them to Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell &
The Lake of Fire for All Eternity, when they ultimately pass away, even if they Never did anything violent or illegal in their Pathetic Earthly Lives. They still deserve Eternal Damnation. They can't cry "Free Speech" when they stand before God. Jewish People have Feelings Also, and didn't choose to be Jewish, many Jews and people who are Part-Jewish don't like being Jewish or looking Jewish either. Jewish Self-Hatred is Very Common , countless Jews and people who are part Jewish don't like being Jewish or looking Jewish either .
Many Pro-Israel Christians like the website jtf.org Jewish Task Force, JTF by
Chaim Ben Pesach & Other followers of the late Brooklyn Born
Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990 JTF is the Real Deal
James Swan & Everyone Else
ReplyDeleteNot trying to sound redundant, but I still think Luther's ravings against the Jews was Much Worse , Much More Hateful as compared to his Hate Rants Against his Various
Non-Jewish opponents
Luther's Hatred of Jews was mostly Theological, but it was somewhat Racial as well, he commented on Jews facial characteristics
Not All Hatreds are Equal
Anti-Semitism, Jew-Hatred, Anti-Israel Hatred is the Ultimate Evil Sin, the Ultimate Wickedness
Because of All the Psychological Harm, Self-Hatred and Inferority Complex, Anger and Distress it causes the Jewish people and people who are Half-Jewish or part-Jewish
Countless Jews and part Jews do Not like being Jewish or looking Jewish, they wish that they were Not born Jewish, they are Secular and don't practice the Jewish Religion and many are somewhat Anti-Semitic Themselves and give support to the Enemies of Israel and the Jewish people
Myself and Others Feel that
All the Vile Jew-Haters, Anti-Semites and Anti-Israel Losers in the World, when they ultimately pass away they deserve to Suffer Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell and the Lake of Fire, for their Horrible Sin of
Anti-Semitism , Jew-Hatred and Anti-Israel Hatred against Jews and Israel
Even if they Never did anything violent or illegal in their Pathetic Loser Earthly lives, they still deserve to Suffer Forever in Hell and The Lake of Fire , how can these Bigots and Haters be so Heartless, Insensitive, and without Morals or Conscience, when they ultimately pass away they can't cry "Free Speech" when they stand before God as an Excuse or Defense of their Lies and Hatred
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Pro-Israel Zionist Christian, he often spoke out in Support of Israel and understood that
Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism
If Luther is in Heaven, which I seriously doubt, did God purge the Jew-Hatred out of him ?
Even if Luther would have Not personally approved of the Holocaust and the Murder of 6 Million Jews, I think God definitely Holds Luther responsible for Causing and Inspiring the Holocaust
Jews have always been universally Hated, Persecuted, Murdered, everywhere in the World all throughout Human History, Hated, Persecuted and Murdered More than All Other Groups of People COMBINED
Countless Christians have Explained why Anti-Semitism, Jew-Hatred is Satanic. Satan the Devil Hates the Jews while
God Loves Loves Them.
Even now in 2023 Replacement Theology is False , The Jews are Still God's Chosen People
Many Pro-Israel Christians like the website
jtf.org Jewish Task Force
JTF by Chaim Ben Pesach , a follower of the late Brooklyn born Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990 . Many people contributed to JTF and gave Countless Good Comments , JTF is the Real Deal
Thanks for letting me Vent
Mr. Swan & Everyone Else
ReplyDeletechristianitytoday.com has an article headlined
"The Most Dangerous Thing Luther Did" by
BEN WITHERINGTON III About how Luther translated the Bible, any opinions ? I will admit that
Martin Luther was a brilliant theologian in many ways , but his Anti-Jewish Views were hideous
Mr. Swan , do you have any opinion on the jtf.org
ReplyDeleteJewish Task Force , JTF website by Chaim Ben Pesach , what is your opinion of the
Late Brooklyn Born
Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990
When Kahane was alive many
Christians had Love & Respect for him realizing that he was a living legend that Rised Out of the Ashes of the Holocaust
Hello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with Rabbi Meir Kahane.
That's the Problem, the public Schools don't teach about him , many people have Never even heard of the Brooklyn born Rabbi
DeleteMeir Kahane 1932-1990
Born Martin David Kahane
But you can look him up on Wikipedia and other Pro-Kahane Articles online
Mr. Swan , I was speaking with a friend yesterday about Luther and his Anti-Semitism , he pointed out how when Luther wrote "On the Jews and their Lies" about how Luther advised Synagogues be burned down as proof that Luther would have supported the Extermination of 6 Million Jews, during the Holocaust , while some have argued that if Luther was alive during the Holocaust, he would only support sparing the lives of Jews who sincerely convert to Christianity
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn your quest to explore Luther's attitude towards the Jews, a good avenue of exploration is to actually obtain books written by qualified individuals that specifically, and in tedious detail, cover the topic. A few I would suggest are:
Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment
Demonizing the Jews, Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany
These are far better sources than a blog post or your friend's opinion.
Mr. Swan , I don't yet have the time to read those books , could you describe their opinion in a Nutshell, if they believe Luther would have supported the Holocaust and the Murder of
ReplyDelete6 Million Jews
Also jtf.org said about the New Testament and
Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990 that
"person typed on
jtf.org about
Rabbi Meir Kahane that
“Rabbi Kahane was a bridge to the Bnái Nohach as required in Acts 15:21. We have not forgotten his blessed memory."
Mr. Swan, I forgot to type
ReplyDeleteyears ago I found this song on YouTube called
“A Special Man” it was made by Michael Elias to Honor the late
Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990 listen to the words/lyrics in the song, doesn’t it Perfectly Fit the Description of the Life and Person of Jesus in the Bible Perfectly ,of Jesus of Nazareth
Don’t misunderstand, I am Not comparing Meir Kahane to Jesus Christ or vice versa
But you have to admit that the
Lyrics in this song make you think of Jesus himself
The Lord Jesus Christ !!
The song with footage can be found here https://youtu.be/-FR2rW2CKQE Do you agree that the words/lyrics in this song reminds you and others of
Jesus !!
Mr. Swan , I don't yet have the time to read those books , could you describe their opinion in a Nutshell, if they believe Luther would have supported the Holocaust and the Murder of 6 Million Jews
ReplyDeleteI personally have been trying to stop using the phrase, "I don't have the time..." (or a phrase like, "I don't yet have the time") because...frankly, God willing, I do have the time... I'm simply not wishing to utilize it to do particular things. I'm choosing to do something rather than another thing. This leads directly to your request:
Yes, I could describe what those authors said, but I'm choosing not to use my time to describe what those authors said... to you. I'm not intending this to be mean-spirited, but I believe you could make a meager attempt to use your time to study this issue by going beyond blogs and friends to actual written sources by qualified historians and theologians.
Did you listen to the song on YouTube
ReplyDelete“A Special Man” by Michael Elias to Honor the late
Rabbi Meir Kahane 1932-1990
Do you see why the words remind me and others of
Jesus !!
No, not yet.
ReplyDeleteOK, Please Get Back to me when you can after listening to the Song
DeleteMr. Swan ,
ReplyDeleteOn the Instagram account lyon_strategic for
Lyon Strategic Consulting , Business Consulting based in
San Pedro, California , United States
On Tuesday December 26, 2023
The
"Thought for the day" has the
Meir Kahane quote
"Life is essentially a question of values" with a picture of the great
Rabbi ! This also appears on the Facebook page for
Lyon Strategic Consulting
See also lyonsc.com
Rabbi Meir Kahane also mentioned the Jew-Hatred, Anti-Semitism of Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and other Christian "leaders" in European History
Do you agree with the Kahane quote ?
Mr. Swan
ReplyDeletechristianitytoday.com has an article headlined
“Did Christianity Cause the Holocaust?”
on APRIL 27, 1998 Sadly this article whitewashes and sugarcoats the direct role Christianity had in causing the Holocaust , Martin Luther is mentioned in this article
Even Jewish believers in Jesus,
Messianic Jews have admitted the painful truth that
Christian Anti-Semitism did indeed directly cause the Holocaust
Sadly much of
Christianity today in 2024 is still very Anti-Semitic and
Anti-Israel
I believe you may be the same individual that has been trolling this blog entry for months, and if it's you... you may have noticed I am not publishing your comments.
ReplyDeleteI'm allowing your comment this time to simply to point out:
I do not deny the Jews have been persecuted by the Christian church, nor do I deny that Luther made gross antisemitic statements. As to Christianity being the direct cause? I would say it was ONE of the direct causes, not the sole cause of Hitler's evil reign. Luther, being part of the Christian church, has his antisemitism rightly added to the collective accumulation of Christian antisemitism. He's guilty along with the rest of those people throughout church history that have sought to persecute the Jews.
Now if you're the person that keeps trolling this entry, please reread what I've written now as many times as it takes for you to understand I do not condone Christian antisemitism. I have overtly said many times on this blog that Luther made antisemitic statements.
If you're the person that has been trolling this entry, I will not publish your comments if you repeatedly try to goad me into excusing Christian antisemitism, particularly Luther's.
What I will NOT do is excuse all Christian antisemitism and solely blame Luther for the Holocaust.
Luther, being part of the Christian church, has his antisemitism rightly added to the collective accumulation of Christian antisemitism.
ReplyDeleteWhich mainly was that of Catholicism, and in even in modern times has resisted supporting the state of Israel, while courting Muslims. In contrast, it has been evangelicals overall (despite some supersessionists) who have been the foremost supporters of the state of Israel, and against antisemitism.
And what is also ignored in history is that this Jews overall have often been antagonistic toward Christians, while I think that their insular nature (not running soup kitchens etc,) made it easy for demonic Hitler to wrongly scapegoat them for militant Germany's woes.
It is fundamental Islam and their liberal allies which are the foremost antisemites today, yet it is politically correct for supporters of them to blame evangelicals Christians for all evils.
PeaceByJesus
ReplyDeleteWhen you typed above
"And what is also ignored in history is that this Jews overall have often been antagonistic toward Christians, while I think that their insular nature (not running soup kitchens etc,)"
Do you have any proof of that ?
There are two statements in the above, and with Jews overall often being antagonistic toward Christians mainly referring to basic Biblical ones (which the Catholic church has also been antagonistic toward - as did Hitler's Germany), there is testimony to the first.
ReplyDeleteAnd which does not justify antisemitism, and acts thereof, which is not to be confused with theological opposition, though that is included under antagonism, and when used to justify genetic racial hatred and violence then it should be considered intolerable. Those who cannot separate the two may be an issue here.
As concerns antagonism, I will begin with one who was a devout Jew (almost all the first Christians were), who was willing to be damned himself if it would mean their eternal salvation (Rm. 9:1-5):
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)
Obviously, this was not referring all Jews, but mainly to leadership and a culture of resistance and opposition to "the sect of the Nazarenes" in evangelism, to which the Jewish gospel writers record, as does historical Luke in Acts in contrast to benevolent Jews and Gentiles.
Later, polemically you have the (disputed) Talmudic references Peter Schäfer is a primary proponent that these refer to the Biblical Christ. in the Middle Ages, Maimonides considered Christianity to be a prime example of idolatrous heresy.
Yale historian Ivan G. Marcus explains that "when the teachers of Judaism known as the rabbis emerged, the enemy was not Christians per se, but Christianity as an ancient pagan cult. And paganism was something that the rabbis, as the biblical prophets, were familiar with, and pagans were the subject of attack. So Christianity was attacked by Jews, and Jews were attacked Christians. It was not a symmetrical target."
Far more recently, A bill was introduced in January 2023 by a pair of ultra-Orthodox Jewish lawmakers, which would render soliciting someone to convert their faith punishable by one year in prison. Netanyahu helped kill it.
Of course, this is the norm with those who seek to rule as a theocracy (and the political Left here persecutes dissenters to its feelings-based ideology).
Space does not allow for a more expansive examination of this aspect, while as for the charge of being insular as regards not being known for running soup kitchens etc., that is an opinion ("I think,,") of mine, and I can find no testimony to the Jews of Germany being known for philanthropy to the Germans.
Which made it easier for a madman orator with a root of bitterness to scapegoat them, esp. as a small minority which (due to God's grace) had and have an inordinate effect in the world. I read that "In the 1930s, Germany’s Jews – some 500,000 people – made up less than one percent (0.8%) of the German population....24% of Germany’s Nobel Prize winners were Jewish."
And I myself can tell of Jewish antagonism to evangelism, but I have a supernatural love for them, and oppose antisemitism, while seeking to explain it.